Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Malcolm MacPherson, Esq., M.B.E., Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

NEW WRIT

For Hayes and Harlington, in the room of Arthur Massey Skeffington, Esq., deceased. [Mr. Mellish.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown signified]

Read the Third time and passed.

EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (NEWHAVEN BRIDGE) BILL

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

ALDRIDGE-BROWNHILLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

As amended, considered.

Bills to be read the Third time.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Bill to be considered tomorrow.

GREAT SOUTHERN CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM BILL [Lords]

Bill read a Second time and committed.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I beg to move,

That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:—

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 22, line 22, leave out 'Postmaster General' and insert 'Post Office'.

Standing Order 27, line 57, leave out 'a' and insert 'one' leave out from 'Office' in line 59 to end of line 61 and insert 'and two copies at the Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 29, line 3, after 'system', insert 'two copies of'.
Line 8, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
Line 9, leave out 'ministry' and insert 'department, and one copy'.
Line 9, leave out 'at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and'.

Standing Order 30, line 5, leave out 'Ministry of Power' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry'.
Line 6, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 30A, line 5, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 31, line 6, leave out 'Board of Trade' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry'.

Standing Order 34, line 9, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and add "Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 37, line 15, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 39, line 1, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 14 and insert 'On or before the fourth day of December printed copies shall be deposited (1) of every bill, three at the Department of the Environment; two at the Department of Social Services and at the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications and one at the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Employment, the Office of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster'.

Standing Order 45, line 32, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 46, lines 4, and 5, leave out 'Board of Trade or Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry or Department of the Environment'.
Line 5, leave out 'offices' and insert 'Departments'.

Standing Order 47, lines 10 and 11, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 144, line 13, leave out 'and the Board of Trade'.

Standing Order 146, line 5, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
Line 7, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 147, line 7, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
Line 9, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 154, line 11, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
Line 23, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.

Standing Order 155, leave out lines 4 and 5, and insert 'Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State for the Environment'.
Line 8, leave out 'Board or Minister' and insert 'Secretary of State'.

Standing Order 156B, line 16, leave out 'Minister of Housing and Local Government or'.

Standing Orders page 98, leave out Table of Fees and insert new Table of Fees as follows:

A TABLE OF FEES TO BE CHARGED AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

I. FEES TO BE PAID BY THE PROMOTERS OF A PRIVATE BILL


For the deposit of the Petition, Bill, Plan and other Documents required to be deposited in the Private Bill Office
£5


For each day on which the Examiner shall inquire into compliance with the Standing Orders
£5

FOR PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE


On the First Reading of the Bill
£15


On the Second Reading of the Bill
£15


On the Report from the Committee on the Bill
£15


On the Third Reading of the Bill
£15


Additional fee on a Debate at Seven o'clock on one or more evenings on any one stage of the Bill
£25

The promoters of Bills relating to charitable, religious, educational, literary or scientific purposes whereby no private profit or advantage

is derived, and Personal Bills brought from the Lords, may be charged one-half of the preceding fees.

Except for such Bills as are mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, the preceding Fees on First, Second and Third Readings, and on Report, shall be increased, according to the total sum of moneys which it is proposed to raise or expend under the authority of the Bill, in accordance with the following scale:—
If the sum be two hundred thousand pounds or more, and less than one million pounds, twice the amount of these Fees;
If the sum be one million pounds or more, and lessthan two million pounds, three times the amount of these Fees;
If the sum be two million pounds or more, and less than three million pounds, four times the amount of these Fees;
If the sum be three million pounds or more, and less than five million pounds, five times the amount of these Fees;
If the sum be five million pounds or more, six times the amount of these Fees.

FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A COMMITTEE OR THE COURT OF REFEREES


For each of the first three days on which a Committee on an opposed Bill shall sit
£10


For each subsequent day
£15


For each day on which a Committee on an unopposed Bill shall sit
£3


For each day on which the Court of Referees shall sit
£10

For proceedings before a Joint Committee one-half of the preceding fees shall be charged.

II. FEES TO BE PAID BY PETITIONERS AND MEMORIALISTS


On the deposit of any Memorial complaining that the Standing Orders have not been complied with
£1


On the presentation of any Petition in favour of or against a Private Bill
£2


For each day on which the Examiner inquires into any Memorial complaining of noncompliance with the Standing Orders
£2


For each clay on which a Petitioner appears before any Committee or or before the Court of Referees
£2


For each clay on which a Petitioner appears before a Joint Committee
£1

III. FEES TO BE PAID BY THE APPLICANTS FOR A PROVISIONAL ORDER

On the Second Reading of a Bill to confirm one or more Provisional Orders, other than a Bill to confirm an Order or Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, the applicants for each Provisional Order included in the Bill shall be charged a fee of £15.

For proceedings before the Court of Referees of any Committee, the fees charged to applicants and opponents shall be the same rates as those charged for similar proceedings on a Private Bill.

IV. FEES TO BE PAID FOR PROCEEDINGS ON A SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDER


For each day on which an applicant (other than a Minister) appears before


(a) the Chairmen
£1·50


(b) a Joint Committee
£5


On the deposit of each Petition or Counter-Petition, a copy of either
£1


For each day on which a Petitioner in either House appears before the Chairmen or before a Joint Committee
£1


For each day on which a Counter-Petitioner in either House appears before a Joint Committee
£1

V. GENERAL FEES


On each Motion, Order or Proceeding in the House upon a Private Bill, Petition, or matter not otherwise charged
£1


For a copy of any Paper or Document, per folio of 72 words—



If five folios or under
19p


If above five folios, per folio
4p


For a copy of a Plan, made by the parties
£1·50


For the inspection of a Plan or other Document
37½p


For each day on which any parties shall be heard by Counsel at the Bar, from each side
£10


For each day on which a Committee of the whole House shall sit on a Private Bill or matter
£6


For serving any Summons or Order on a Private Bill or matter
£1


For each Order for the commitment or discharge of any person
£1


For taking any person into custody for a Breach of Privilege or Contempt
£5


For taking any person into custody for any other cause
£2


For each day on which any person shall be in custody
£1


For Riding Charges per mile
5p

VI. FEES TO BE PAID ON THE TAXATION OF COSTS ON PRIVATE BILLS


For each application or reference to the Taxing Officer of the House of Commons for the Taxation of a Bill of Costs
£1


For each £100 of any Bill of Costs allowed by the Taxing Officer
£1


On the deposit of a Memorial complaining of a Report of the Taxing Officer
£1

For any Certificate which shall be signed by the Speaker
£1


For a copy of any Document in the Office of the Taxing Officer, per folio of 72 words
5p

VII. FEES TO BE TAKEN BY THE SHORTHAND WRITER


For each day he shall attend


Home
£7·82½


Distance of more than 60 miles from Charing Cross
£9·27½


For the transcript of his notes, per folio of 72 words—


where carbon copies of transcript are supplied
13½p


where no carbons of transcript are supplied
19p


carbon copy, per folio of 72 words
1p


where evidence is sound recorded
25p

The preceding fees shall be charged, paid, and received at such times, in such manner and under such regulations as the Speaker shall from time to time direct.

All these Amendments are of a formal nature, making no change of substance in Standing Orders. They are necessary either because of recent changes in the responsibilities of Government Departments or following the introduction of decimal currency. [Interruption.]

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to ask the Chairman of Ways and Means for an explanation of any or all of these Amendments? How does one proceed?

Mr. Speaker: I think that would constitute an objection, and, if the hon. Member persists in his objection, I must say, "Objection taken. Debate resumed what day?"

Mr. Lewis: No, I do not persist.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is——

Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I shouted "No" earlier, and I object to this for a technical reason.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

National Health Service and Local Government Reform

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure that there is adequate consultation with local health authorities to achieve harmonisation of proposals for the reform of the National Health Service with proposals for local government reform; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I have sent copies of the consultative document "National Health Service Reorganisation" to the main local authority associations asking for their comments on my proposals. The document proposes a working party, representative of local government and other interests concerned, to study detailed arrangements for close co-ordination between the health services and related local authority services.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that that reply will give considerable satisfaction to enlightened and thoughtful local authorities like the Hertfordshire County Council? Does he also appreciate that there is a problem here of integrating the pattern of these two allied forms of legislation on the health side and the local government side so as to ensure that no step is taken under either head without full co-ordination with the requirements of the other?

Sir K. Joseph: There is no more important ingredient of the coming health service reorganisation than the closest collaboration, to which my right hon. and learned Friend rightly refers, between the new health authorities and the new local authorities.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that there is criticism concerning the circulation of the document, particularly in regard to numbers, and that some authorities have received only one copy of it and have had to resort to photocopying in order that the members may consider it? Is he aware that this is a very unsatisfactory procedure?

Sir K. Joseph: No. I was not aware of those matters. I will inquire into the situation. If the document has had to be photocopied, which I regret, it is at least a short document.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain proposals in the document which are disturbing to us on this side of the House, in particular the absence of any direct local representation at regional level, the absence of any clear statement about the future of the school medical service and the fact that general practitioners are to remain under a separate structure? In view of our concern on these points, could he make sure that the document is available to members of the general public as well as to local authorities, so that a major discussion can take place before he issues his White Paper?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

Younger Chronic Sick Persons

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations contained in the memorandum on the care of the younger chronic sick, issued by his Department in June, 1968.

Sir K. Joseph: Six more special units have been provided to bring the total up to 28. A further 21 are planned to start this year; 18 of these are being financed from the extra £3 million I am setting aside for this purpose over the next four years.

Mr. Farr: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Is he satisfied with the replies from hospital boards following the inquiry which was set up by his predecessor asking what progress they had made in this connection?

Sir K. Joseph: I am satisfied that the boards are trying to make, and are now being enabled to make, considerable progress. The job is not quite in sight of being finished, but I hope it will be completed very soon.

Supplementary Benefit Tribunals

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will establish an inquiry into the operation of supplementary benefit tribunals.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): The constitution and working of these tribunals are kept under review by the Council on Tribunals under the provisions of Section 1 of the Tribunal and Inquiries Act, 1958.

Mr. Davis: Does the hon. Gentleman hope that, by reason of the instructions recently given to the Supplementary Benefits Commission about evidence given to tribunals involving cases of cohabitation, there will be an end to the unpleasant snooping and prying which has taken place in such cases? Hearsay evidence has been admitted, to the detriment of women applicants, and many women have been deprived of benefits on the say-so of other people in circumstances where there has been no substantial evidence that the woman is receiving any help from the man with whom she is alleged to be cohabiting. Does he not consider this matter to be worthy of further inquiry?

Mr. Dean: This is a difficult and delicate area in which officials have to draw a balance between providing prompt help for those who are entitled to it and, at the same time, seeing that the arrangements are not abused.

National Health Service (Lower-paid Workers)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking in the light of the report of the Prices and Incomes Board on the lower-paid workers employed in the National Health Service.

Sir K. Joseph: The Board's report No. 166 is being urgently considered in consultation with representatives of hospital management.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not a terrible thing that the answer given the Secretary of State deals only with management although workers also are affected by this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman have urgent discussions with the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees with a view to instituting some efficient arrangements in view of the wide discrepancy between the lowest

of the lowest paid and the highest of the highest paid?

Sir K. Joseph: I am very concerned to raise productivity and earnings in the hospital service, and I take the hon. Gentleman's point. First of all, I must examine with the boards the possibility of expanding the skilled staffs necessary to carry out either the incentive schemes which are now in operation or those recommended by the Board.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this problem has proved intractable over the years and that in the past it has been no easier of solution by reason of the relatively low ranking of Ministers of Health in the governmental hierarchy? Would he, therefore, appreciate that he now has a great opportunity to make some progress in the solution of the problem of the remuneration of those who are doing this socially useful work and whose contribution cannot be precisely measured by market considerations or indices of productivity?

Sir K. Joseph: I fear that Ministerial energy and willpower are not enough, though I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has both at his disposal to an incomparable degree. There are difficulties of mobilising and managing men and women to increase their output, as has been found by Governments in the past.

Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of lower-paid workers in the National Health Service are highly skilled and that this almost intractable problem requires immediate action by the Government? Is he also aware that the pilot scheme for bonus payments has operated in only one area of the country, and does he not agree that the scheme should be extended throughout the whole country to get to grips with the problem? Is it not essential that the commendable spirit of the workers, who have remained loyal to this service when they could have found work elsewhere, should not be exploited?

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot take up the hon. Gentleman's reference to skills without knowing what he has in mind. The Board points out that the trade unions have not universally interested themselves


enormously in productivity and the relations between productivity and earnings among some of the workers concerned.

Disability Pension

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now take steps to introduce a disability pension for the registered disabled, in the light of recent representations.

Mr. Dean: I would refer my hon. Friend to the National Insurance Bill now before the House which includes a substantial package of selective improvements for the chronic sick. I am writing to my hon. Friend on the individual case which I believe concerns him.

Mr. Hannam: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for that answer. Would he not accept that, in view of the reports showing that 1,250,000 disabled adults living in private households face disproportionate increases in costs of special diets, equipment and clothing, he should give careful attention to the recommendations of the Disablement Income Group for a national disability pension or income?

Mr. Dean: Yes, that is one of the reasons for the substantial increase in the cash benefits under the National Insurance Bill, and why my right hon. Friend has already assured the House that this is only the first step among other measures which will be taken, both in cash and care, to help this section of the community.

Dr. Summerskill: Could the hon. Gentleman say why the Government felt unable to accept the Amendment of the Opposition which sought to cover disabled married women who have opted out of the National Insurance scheme?

Mr. Dean: Because some of them will be covered already under the Bill. We have made a good start and cannot be expected to do everything at once, but other steps will be taken as soon as possible.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my hon. Friend give particularly favourable consideration to the representations of the Disablement Income Group in regard to a disability income, which would not only bring this country into line with other countries but encourage the long-

term unemployed among the disabled to re-enter work and make themselves independent?

Mr. Dean: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we are urgently considering what other steps to take.

Health Service Ombudsman

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is yet able to announce the appointment of a Health Service ombudsman.

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot yet go beyond what I said in reply to Questions on this matter on 4th May.—[Vol. 816, c. 1163.]

Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us believe that the proposals in the consultative document are undemocratic and, if implemented, will strengthen the case for the appointment of a Health Service ombudsman?

Sir K. Joseph: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not agree with him.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that we have a very good ombudsman as it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Would he consider not duplicating this work but giving the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is very skilled in this matter, the work in regard to hospitals under the Government's direct control?

Sir K. Joseph: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the views which have been expressed on this matter by the Select Committee of this House to which the ombudsman reports?

Sir K. Joseph: I have noted very carefully the views of the Select Committee.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would my right hon. Friend try to give a swift answer on this matter? There are many hon. Members on this side of the House who desperately want to see such an appointment, and we hope that he will not take as long in making up his mind as his predecessor did.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes. I have said before that I am bound to meet the medical profession before making up my mind.


I hope that the meeting with the consultants and the B.M.A. will take place soon.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In considering the appointment of an ombudsman—besides that of the Select Committee, there is the view of at least one of the committees of inquiry into a major difficulty at a mental subnormality hospital to be taken into account—will the right hon. Gentleman consider making it possible for the Health Service Advisory Committee in certain circumstances to bring situations to the attention of that person, because many hon. Members are concerned that the ombudsman should not merely be an appeal court?

Sir K. Joseph: I take it that the hon. Lady is referring to the Hospital Advisory Service?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Yes.

Sir K. Joseph: That goes much further than what I have in mind at the moment, but I will ponder what the hon. Lady has said.

Terminal Cancer (Treatment)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will initiate an inquiry into the treatment of patients suffering from terminal cancer.

Sir K. Joseph: I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the replies to his Questions on 6th and 22nd April. The terminal care studies referred to include cancer cases.—[Vol. 815, c. 67, 450.]

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that about a fifth of all the people in this country will in due course die of this disease? Is he further aware that when the doctors returned from investigating Dr. Issels' clinic in Bavaria they said that people found it necessary to go to Germany for treatment of terminal cancer because our treatment is so woefully inadequate in general? In view of the sense of outrage of people suffering from this illness and that of their families and friends, will he at least give some hope of an immediate, full and comprehensive inquiry into the entire problem?

Sir K. Joseph: I am very sympathetic to the hon. and learned Gentleman's approach. I shall be visiting one of the

places concerned this week. I cannot undertake to promise a comprehensive inquiry, but I shall study further what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and the various studies which are going on.

Drugs

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to increase the information and advice given to general practitioners on prescribing costs and on the comparative costs of drugs.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I think that the information services we now provide for doctors are sufficient in quantity; but I shall neglect no opportunity of improving their quality.

Mr. Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is still some concern in this sphere about waste of prescribing charges in the National Health Service? In particular, whilst considering the possibility of graduated prescription charges as one way of increasing the awareness of prescribing costs, will he consider whether there are possibilities in other directions for achieving the same aim—for example, by increasing the number of staff in his Department working in this sphere and the frequency of their visits to general practitioners?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. I doubt whether a further expansion of visits to doctors will be productive, but I will consider what my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Dalyell: What does the Secretary of State mean by "neglecting no opportunity"? Does he intend to extend, or try to extend, the Ipswich experiment on amphetamines?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has bowled me out there. I am not sure that I know the reference.

Dr. Summerskill: The amphetamines.

Sir K. Joseph: That is off the point of the Question. I am interested in spreading the voluntarly amphetamine ban imposed on themselves by the G.Ps in Ipswich. I am interested in presenting to doctors even more vividly, if I can improve the quality, information about clinically


equivalent alternatives at differential prices.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's reply means that he has now abandoned the ludicrous scheme to bring in cost-related prescriptions. If not, he will have to think hard again about his reply, because it will be crucial to give advice of this kind unless the disaster is to be even greater than we suppose it is likely to be.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that the hon. Lady knows that I am in the midst of the rational dialogues to which I had looked forward.

National Pensions Plan

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish his Department's new National Pensions plan.

Mr. Dean: We are pressing on with our plans, but I cannot at this stage give a date for their publication.

Mr. Dykes: I appreciate my hon. Friend's difficulty. Is he aware that there has been a widespread welcome, both inside and outside this House, for an early plan which would make clear the relationship of private to national pensions and the differences between graduated national pensions and the flat-rate State pensions?

Mr. Dean: Yes, Sir. I think the House knows that it is the Government's firm intention to encourage occupational pension schemes to develop still further.

Mr. Marks: As inflation has made nonsense of the idea that we need to review pensions only every two years, will there be provision for an annual review in the new plan?

Mr. Dean: My right hon. Friend's proposals now before the House involve bringing forward this year's increase by about six weeks. I cannot add to that.

Pensioners (Supplementary Benefit)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what publicity he proposes to give to explain to retired pensioners, who are in receipt of supplementary benefits, the effect on such benefits when the increase in State pensions takes place in September.

Mr. Dean: All supplementary pensioners will receive a short leaflet explaining how the changes will affect their incomes.

Mr. Cox: I note the reply. Is it not a fact that when the pension increases take place in September there will be a reduction in the State supplementary pension now payable? This will mean to millions of people that the actual increase which they will receive in September will be only a few shillings above what they are now receiving? This will in no way cover the continued increase in the cost of living which they face. This is certain to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction and confusion in the minds of many pensioners. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore get his Department to look at the whole question of supplementary pensions?

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is certainly correct, but he forgets that there was an increase in supplementary pensions last November when there was no increase in National Insurance pensions. The increase over the two years will be exactly the same as the increase in National Insurance pensions. Over and above that, if pensioners have had increases in rent, for example, they will be fully covered for those increases.

Mr. William Price: Why do not all Governments tell old people the truth? Whatever the rights and wrongs of this academic argument in this House, which we understand, millions of old folk do not understand it, and many of them, for reasons apparent to both Front Benches, will be expecting a rise which they will not get.

Mr. Dean: It is for that reason that they will all get a leaflet explaining the situation. One of the great distinguishing features between this Government and the last Government is that we do tell people the truth.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Common Market and all that!

Mr. William Price: Nobody believes them—that is the trouble.

Post-Graduate Medical Training

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he


has read the evidence in the British Journal of Medical Education, which is in his possession, on post-graduate medical training facilities being made available to immigrant doctors who, in relation to conditions in their own countries, derive little benefit from them; and if he will use his influence in the interests alike of developing countries and of British medical students deprived of places of which they could make use, to ameliorate this situation.

Sir K. Joseph: I am aware of the article to which my hon. Friend refers. I have no evidence that British doctors are unable to obtain the post-graduate training they need because of the facilities afforded to overseas doctors.

Mr. King: Would it not be selfish if Great Britain, with a ratio of about one doctor to 800 patients, were to make a special effort to attract doctors from developing countries where the ratio may be 1 to 7,000? Whilst there is a desperate need for doctors at grass roots level in developing countries, the sophisticated postgraduate techniques which some of them are taking up scarce medical facilities here to learn can, when they return to their own countries, often be applied only to a small gaggle of wealthy people. Is not this a waste of medical resources and perhaps of medical education?

Sir K. Joseph: But in a free world people tend to move where their services are needed and paid for. We must be grateful, while recognising the damage and loss to the developing countries, for the services of many of their doctors in this country, remembering that some of our doctors go to other markets.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although we are grateful to immigrant doctors for keeping our hospitals going, we should be educating more medical students who have the qualifications to go to medical school but cannot obtain the places, and thus increasing our output of doctors?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. We are increasing the number and size of medical schools, and, therefore, the output of doctors. However, it takes some years to raise the output of doctors, as we all know.

Means-Tested Welfare Services (Advertisements)

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will withdraw poster reference number; Dd 820925 3/71 issued by his Departent, in view of the misleading nature of the statistics contained therein.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the fact that some of the figures used in his advertisements about means-tested welfare services are misleading and causing concern, he will withdraw such advertisements and replace them with more accurate versions.

Mr. Dean: I do not agree that the advertisements were misleading. The object was to encourage as many people as possible to claim. For this reason, as the advertisements clearly state, gross; income figures were used, and approximations were used for the scales for children and for rent, even though this inevitably meant that a small number of people would be disappointed when, on making a claim, they gave exact details.

Mr. Clark: I very much regret what the Minister has said. Does he realise that thousands of people are earning £2 or £3 a week less than the figures quoted in the document? Does he not accept that it is extremely callous to build up people's hopes and then dash them in the way that he has done?

Mr. Dean: No, Sir. The figures prove quite the contrary. For example, the average awards for welfare foods and milk before the take-up campaign started were 29 a week. They are now averaging over 11,000 a week.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many have applied and been rejected, which is the meaningful figure? Does he not realise that the figures in the advertisement were so misleading as to qualify for a Tory Party Central Office hand-out? It was very fortuitous that it was issued just before the local elections, with calamitous results for the Tory Party.

Mr. Dean: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. The figures I have given show the substantial success of the take-up campaign. It is certainly


the case that not everyone who applies is granted an award. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise proportion, because some of the applications are still being processed, but it is substantially over 50 per cent.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I recognise the genuine desire to encourage the maximum number of people to make the claim, but does not the hon. Gentleman think the position needs to be reviewed, especially leaflet FB/11, in which the section dealing with free optical and dental treatment has a discrepancy of about 30 to 40 per cent., which is too high a margin even to achieve the Government's objectives?

Mr. Dean: We are always prepared to look at leaflets in the light of experience, but I think I can still fairly claim that the results of the take-up campaign so far have been immensely encouraging.

Welfare Milk (Children Under Five)

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children under the age of five he now estimates will cease to receive welfare milk as a result of Government action.

Sir K. Joseph: Just over three million in England, all of whom are, however, still entitled to National Dried Milk at 20p per pack, which is the equivalent of less than 3p per daily pint of liquid milk. Entitlement to free milk is extended by an estimated 25 per cent.

Miss Lestor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some confusion in the country among those concerned with the under-fives as to why children attending any registered pre-school establishment will automatically receive free milk and yet most of those at home with their mothers will have to pay the full price for their milk? Will he explain the nutritional and dietary arguments that led to such a ridiculous stituation?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think it is ridiculous. Our reasoning was that when children under five are away from their mother for several hours, as are the children with whom we are here concerned, there should be milk available, but when they are at home we can rely in practically every case on the mother providing the necessary nutrition there.

Geriatric and General Medicine (Consultants)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional appointments of consultants in geriatric medicine and general medicine he is proposing to authorise following the report of the South-East Metropolitan Hospitals Board.

Sir K. Joseph: The initiative for proposing new posts lies with hospital boards. My Department last month approved a proposal by the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board for one consultant post in geriatric medicine. No proposals from it are currently awaiting a decision.

Mrs. Williams: Might the right hon. Gentleman consider encouraging metropolitan regional hospital boards to put forward such proposals? In the report geriatric wards are described as human warehouses. One of the points the board made most strongly was that this was the most desperately under-staffed section of the Health Service.

Sir K. Joseph: I wrote on 13th April to all regional hospital boards and boards of governors inviting proposals for additional senior registrar posts in the specialities where there were many vacancies. I realise that, despite the Government's extra injection of money into the geriatric services, there is still an immense amount to be done.

Optical and Dental Charges (Exemption)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received in connection with the issue of leaflet F11 to dentists and opticians on how to claim exemption from optical and dental charges; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Dean: The British Dental Association wrote to my right hon. Friend about delay in receiving copies of form F11—which were sent to it for information—and pointed out an omission from the form. In his reply my right hon. Friend gave the reasons for the late deliveries and also said what was done about the omission.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the form is bureaucracy run mad, and that many people will have great difficulty in understanding it? What estimate has he made of the number of additional civil servants required to process these incredible application forms?

Mr. Dean: We have done our utmost to make the forms a great deal simpler, and we have received many appreciative comments. If the hon. Gentleman would like to try his hand at simplifying it, I should be very glad to see his version.

Mental Illness

Mrs. Kellett: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has considered the report by the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association on Mental Illness in City and Suburb, a copy of which has been sent to him, saying that certain areas have pockets of high concentration of mentally ill; and if he will sponsor similar studies in each local authority area when planning community care.

Sir K. Joseph: I have studied this report and am aware of its conclusions. Hospital admission and discharge figures provide some planning guidance about the need for community care, and it is for local and hospital authorities in each area to consider together whether any supplementary studies are needed.

Mrs. Kellett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I hope he will accept that these studies are vital if we are to help everyone who is capable of doing so to return to normal life by every means in our power, including, in particular, hostels. Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether a scheme can be worked out whereby people willing to look after mentally-disturbed relatives can do so at home, helped by improvement grants to cover flatlet extensions to their homes?

Sir K. Joseph: I will certainly do that. We have a long way to go in improving the co-ordination between the health services and social services and the homes and individuals.

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what studies have been made, and their results

communicated to him of mental illness in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow; and how the position in those cities compares with London.

Sir K. Joseph: I am not aware of any recent or specific studies of mental illness in these cities which I could compare with what is known of the position in London.

Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful for that reply, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that East London has a much higher than national average as regards mental illness? Could he give an explanation for that?

Sir K. Joseph: No, I am unable to give one, but I am sure that there is a higher proportion of mentally ill persons in some parts of the country who have no help available to them other than institutional help, and that may be the explanation.

Homelessness (London)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further representations he has received about homelessness in London since his announcement of a working party to study this problem.

Mr. Dean: None, Sir.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever its merits or demerits in other spheres, greater competition can only add to the problem of homelessness in London? Can he comment on the point that if we enter the Common Market the staff of European firms wishing to set up in London will further exacerbate the problem?

Mr. Dean: I do not think that on this Question I can be invited to comment on the Common Market. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the working party studying the matter is proceeding with all speed, and that we hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of London are sick and tired of all the investigations, working parties and reports, and that the housing situation in London is worse than it has been since 1945? Will he stop the investigating and get on with the job of providing houses?

Mr. Dean: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but I hope he does not feel that the report recently received is not of some value to us in finding a solution to the problem.

N.H.S. Dentists (Forms)

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many forms a dentist in the National Health Service has to complete before he is able to treat a patient.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): Two for every course of treatment provided for general dental service patients. They are the dental estimate form and the record card, the latter of which, of course, serves a clinical need. In addition, an official receipt has to be given where a statutory charge is payable.

Mr. Costain: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that that is only for standard dental treatment, and that dentists are getting fed up with the number of supplementary forms which he described in the letter he sent to me today? Does he appreciate that I have a great deal of confidence that he will get rid of this lot of statistics and let the detists get on with curing people's toothache?

Mr. Alison: There are a number of other dental forms that may be needed, but they represent a tiny percentage in relation to all courses of dental treatment.

Arthritis

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many working days are lost per year as a result of arthritis.

Mr. Dean: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Watkins: Would I be correct in assuming that the figure is high? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is un-acceptably high? Is his Department engaged in research into the causes of arthritis and its relation to working conditions? If not, does it propose to engage in such research?

Mr. Dean: While I in no way want to minimise the seriousness of the complaint

and the disabilities caused by it, I should say that, although it is rising slightly, it is still a very small percentage of total sickness.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, particularly in view of the disclosures about the extent of disability through arthritis, that prevention is cheaper than care and that much might be gained by additional Government help for research into the causes of this crippling disease?

Mr. Dean: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with what he says. I assure him that a good deal of research is at present taking place into this matter.

Following is the information:

Days of National Insurance Sickness benefit due to arthritis


Statistical year beginning on the first Monday in June
Million of Days


1965–66
…
…
…
13¼


1966–67
…
…
…
13½


1967–68
…
…
…
15


1968–69
…
…
…
15¼


1969–70
…
…
…
15

Prescription Charges

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what margin he will allow above the supplementary benefit scale within which free prescription charges will be granted; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: A person whose net weekly income exceeds supplementary benefit levels by less than the sum of the prescription charges payable plus a margin of 30p is entitled to exemption or refund.

Mr. Dempsey: Would the Minister make it absolutely clear that retirement pensioners with small non-contributory pensions, who will inevitably receive social security supplementary benefits, will be entitled, by a fixed amount of 25p, 50p or 75p, to free prescriptions in view of the increase in prescription charges?

Mr. Alison: I am not clear from the hon. Gentleman's question whether he was referring to pensioners, but he will know that pensioners will be exempt from prescription charges.

Mr. Pavitt: Does not the hon. Gentleman's reply indicate what nonsense it is


to try to cope with our sick people in this fashion? Would he revert to the provisions of the Hinchcliffe Report? Is he aware that every time we seek to have fairness in prescription charges, the drug bill rises and makes nonsense of things?

Mr. Alison: No, Sir. It has been generally accepted for a long time that prescription charges have a valuable part to play in financing the health services, and the measures we take to help people on the margin are thoroughly desirable.

Resources

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what he estimates will be the percentage increase in resources devoted to the social services in 1972–73 compared with 1969–70.

Sir K. Joseph: For the health and personal social services, about 13 per cent. in real terms.
The answer on social security benefits depends upon price movements up to September.

Mr. Lane: Does not that answer show how hollow is the charge of the Labour Party that my right hon. Friends are cutting the social services? Is not the truth that, while much still remains to be done, the Government have at least made a start in tackling certain urgent problems which were scarcely touched by the Labour Government in all of those six dreary years?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. It is undeniably true that as well as raising universal benefits we have been able to start filling some of the gaps in the social services.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his entire policy depends upon the take-up of means-tested benefits, which, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, follows through a very complicated system of forms? We recently had an indication that he is very unlikely to get the amount of take-up upon which his whole argument is bound to have to depend.

Sir K. Joseph: That is a wrong conclusion. So far the results of the take-up campaign have been encouraging.

Geriatric Patients

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the planned provision for geriatric patients in England and Wales for 1981; and how far this meets the need based on the latest population projection figures.

Sir K. Joseph: Detailed plans are not available as far ahead as 1981, but development plans now being made by boards for the provision of hospital geriatric services are generally based on the projected 1981 elderly population.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is a growing need for community services to be expanded and for wider publicity for the success, in certain mental hospitals, of separating the old from the mentally ill, thereby enabling both of them to be better looked after?

Sir K. Joseph: I agree abundantly with both of my hon. Friend's points.

Mr. Greville Janner: When planning for the future of the geriatric services, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the needs of the domiciliary services, which enable more elderly people to be looked after and treated properly in their own homes so that they do not then have to be sent off to inadequate hospitals, as happens now?

Sir K. Joseph: It is because the Government agree so strongly with this that we have provided differentially large increases in the domiciliary services, and we are concentrating all the time on improving these as well as hospitals.

Old Persons' Home, Manchester

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why he will not use his powers under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, to provide financial assistance to the Little Sisters of the Poor for the rebuilding of St. Joseph's Home for old people, Plymouth Grove, Manchester.

Mr. Alison: Because we consider that a grant towards a local project of this kind is a matter for the responsible local authority and not for central Government.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that reply will be a bitter disappointment to the people of Manchester? Is he not aware that his Department's inspectors have been to St. Joseph's Home and have seen the superb work carried out by these dedicated and saintly women in giving a decent home to more than 100 old people, without any pay for themselves or help from the Government, and with only the most minute assistance from Manchester?

Mr. Alison: Manchester Corporation is well aware of the admirable work carried on at St. Joseph's Home, as are many of us. It has already taken steps to help the home with its revenue.

Later—

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order. I did not wish to take the time of the House by raising this point earlier, Mr. Speaker, particularly during Questions to the Prime Minister. I wish to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer given to my Question No. 30, I shall seek to raise this subject on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (TALKS)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent official meeting with President Pompidou.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official conversations with President Pompidou.

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official talks with President Pompidou.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I did so yesterday, Sir.

Mr. Hunt: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he drew President Pompidou's attention to the very widespread anxiety existing in the House and in the Commonwealth regarding the Community's recent statement on sugar? Following his talks with the French President, does he feel that there is any

prospect of that statement now being strengthened to allay the understandable fears of the sugar producers?

The Prime Minister: The question of sugar was specifically mentioned in the communiqué which was issued after the meeting between the President of France and myself, which emphasised the importance that we both attach to it. At the same time, it should be recognised that the two countries in the new Community, if it is enlarged, with the greatest interests in the developing world will be France and ourselves. This is a joint interest because the present associates also want to maintain in an enlarged Community their existing rights for their products, which are as important to them as the products of the Caribbean, Mauritius and Fiji are to us. So this is now a joint interest between the two countries.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the most significant achievement of the summit meeting the transformation of Anglo-French relations, which now have a warmth that they have not had since the time of Sir Winston Churchill, and to the creation of which my right hon. Friend's integrity and consistency on the European issue has made a notable contribution?

The Prime Minister: I hope the whole House and the country welcome the improvement in relations between France and ourselves and will feel that they are now on a better basis and that the mutual suspicions of the last 20 years can be forgotten.

Mr. Marten: May I return to the question which I asked my right hon. Friend yesterday? Is he now saying that he is against the control of the European Commission by a directly-elected European Parliament, and that it should be left to the Council of Ministers? If so, this is in direct contradiction to what the Germans, the Dutch and the Italians are saying. with this dichotomy of view, is it not important that this matter should be cleared up before we see the terms for entry?

The Prime Minister: The position is quite clearly laid down in the Treaty of Rome, that the Council of Ministers has the responsibility for taking all major decisions. At the same time, the European Parliament, as it at present exists, also


has powers, and those have recently been increased in so far as finance is concerned. Our position is that that should be maintained—that the Ministers should take the major decisions. I also agree with the President of France—and this is a view shared by many other European leaders—that no major interest of any nation should be overruled by the other members. This position is quite clear. If there is to be an enlarged Community, and as it develops, it may well be that the European Parliament itself will grow in its power and influence. This has been a democratic process throughout the ages. I repeat that we can make a considerable contribution towards that.

Mr. Orme: Has the Prime Minister had any second thoughts on the exchanges which took place yesterday about the problems of consulting not only the House but the British people? Is he now prepared to assure us that there will be no rush vote this summer and that time will be given both for the House and for our constituents to be consulted? Has he noted the anti-democratic attitude of such newspapers as The Times this morning on this issue, and, if so, will he repudiate it?

The Prime Minister: I thought I made it plain yesterday that the Government have reached no conclusion on this matter. The negotiations have not yet finished; conclusions have not yet been reached on the major items; the White Paper has not yet been published; and it is not yet possible for either the Leader of the Opposition or myself to form a judgment as to how this matter can best be handled.

Mr. Walters: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who viewed with anxiety and some misgivings the beginning of the negotiations in case Britain should be rebuffed for a third time have been immensely encouraged by the success of his meeting with President Pompidou? Is he further aware that he can look forward to increased support from the country in the negotiations?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I believe it to be the case that many people have been worried about whether Britain would face a third rebuff. That is not now the situation, and they want to get on to

the next stage, which is for the major problems to be dealt with so that a judgment upon them can be formed.

Mr. John Mendelson: Dealing with the problem facing the sugar producers, and as the Prime Minister's talks with President Pompidou were advertised as "plain speaking", may I ask whether he pointed out to the President that the Chancellor of the Duchy is committed, if the sugar-producing countries do not find his agreement acceptable, to return to the negotiating table to say that Britain cannot accept the proposals made at the discussions in Brussels?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter which will be discussed between my right hon. Friend and the leaders of the sugar-producing countries, probably next week, when they meet in London for discussions. My right hon. and learned Friend and the Government will decide what, if any, further action ought to be taken. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, who devotes a considerable amount of time and study to these matters, to recognise that there are existing associates which are also developing countries and have anxieties about the impact of former British developing countries coming into the association because they are more numerous, larger and much wealthier. We have also to consider in the joint arrangements made that the rights of their producers should be recognised. This was the arrangement to which the President of France and myself came.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Do I understand from the Prime Minister's reply yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) that there is now no question of the future of sterling—although I think there are advantages from the point of view of this country in a change here—being involved in the negotiations as such.

The Prime Minister: We have never regarded it as being involved in the negotiations. The discussion which took place was between representatives of the Six and ourselves outside the negotiations. That was the position I maintained in Paris, and it remains the position now.

Mr. Jenkins: Was that accepted by President Pompidou?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it was. It was not part of the negotiations.

PLAY GROUPS

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate a study by the Departments of the Environment, Education and Social Services to ensure that accommodation for play/groups is provided near their homes for families with young children, and, in particular, that outline schemes should be prepared for the conversion on suitable council estates of one ground-floor flat with access to outdoor play space for this purpose.

The Prime Minister: The Department of the Environment has in preparation a design bulletin about play space and other facilities which should be provided for children in new and existing housing areas. This has been prepared as a resuit of the close liaison already existing between all Departments concerned with the needs of young children, and will deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Prime Minister realise that many bolcks of flats have no nursery school and no playground nearby? Does he further appreciate that where there is a playground it is usually impossible for a mother to keep her eye on her child 15 storeys down? Is he further aware that as a result thousands of children are kept in flats throughout the day, with serious mental effects on themselves and their mothers, which could be avoided through the conversion of one of these flats?

The Prime Minister: We recognise these problems, and that is why a considerable amount of social research has now been done into them. It is now almost completed and the design bulletin is in preparation. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion has been examined in the course of this research and will be considered carefully. I do not know whether he is particularly attached to this means of dealing with the problem, but in itself it raises certain problems. We think it may be more expensive than certain other solutions and might also create more disturbance for those living around

the converted flat than if other means are provided for helping children in their play.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much more important than co-ordinating any further study is the need to co-ordinate support for the many voluntary organisations which help provide playgroup services? Will he satisfy himself that these various voluntary organisations are receiving the support that they need to provide an increasing number of playgroups?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly try to see that this is done. Local authorities have certain legal obligations in this area, and it is to these in particular that the bulletin will be addressed. It is also true that certain organisations, for example the National Playing Fields Association, have made valuable suggestions. We will do our best to coordinate them.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to provide more money for the urban programme under which at the moment, by a 75 per cent. grant, local authorities are enabled to provide grants to voluntary play groups to do this job in certain parts of downtown areas in our great cities?

The Prime Minister: I have no announcement to make today about an increase in finance but the Home Office has been closely involved in the social research and in the proposals we are putting out in the design bulletin affecting play.

DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION (SECURITY)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement about the confidentiality and security of information stored by Government Departments in the light of the information now supplied to him.

The Prime Minister: Police inquiries are continuing into allegations of criminal conduct made in The Guardian, and I will make a statement to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Huckfield: While I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that information, may I ask him if he is aware there


is a great deal of concern about the confidentiality of the information? Is he aware that there will be even more concern once such information is stored on a computer? Can he tell the House whether this inquiry will include the activities of the staff of the Registrar-General and the Census Office?

The Prime Minister: It would be inappropriate for me to try to say with what sphere police inquiries into allegations of criminal conduct are concerned. As to the inquiry which I instituted at once into the standing orders and instructions in Government Departments, that involves all Government Departments and associated organisations.

Mr. Pardoe: While welcoming the Prime Minister's reaction to The Guardian allegations, may I ask whether he can say how far the investigation now being carried out by Scotland Yard cuts across the work of the Younger Committee? Does he think, in the light of the information now available, that the terms of reference of that Committee should be changed?

The Prime Minister: Any police investigation into an allegation of criminal conduct does not in any way cut across the work of the Younger Committee. That is entirely separate. The Younger Committee has been asked to take into account the reports which appeared in the Press and the statement that I made to the House immediately afterwards.

PRICES (MINISTER'S BROADCAST)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if the broadcast statement by the Secretary of State for Employment on 5th May on prices represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Barnett: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State spoke only of wage restraint? If that policy is succeeding, as the Prime Minister has said, with prices continuing to rise, does that not mean, effectively, a real cut in living standards? Despite this, would he confirm, perhaps before Thursday's by-elections, that he is not prepared to do anything about price restraint?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will realise that there is a delay between wage increases and price increases. The fact that there has been a de-escalation of wage awards will be reflected in prices later. As for the effect on the real cost of living, that has to take into account tax reductions and the action taken to ameliorate the position of those who benefit from the social services, such as pensioners, the disabled and those who qualify for the F.I.S.

Mr. Rost: If hon. Members opposite are really concerned about price increases, as they pretend to be, why did they support a Government that increased taxation by no less than £3,000 million a year, a Government that devalued the £ and a Government that allowed the most inflationary wage increases to be let loose on this country that we have ever seen?

The Prime Minister: The Labour Party must be responsible for that, but the facts as my hon. Friend has stated them are absolutely clear. What is also clear is that the Labour Party began with guidelines, went to a voluntary policy, went on to a compulsory policy and then abandoned all three; and today they have no policy at all.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give attention to the problems of the present and not to the party diatribe which we have just heard from his back benches? If he accepts, which the figures show, that real wages have been falling slightly in the last month or so, does he intend this to continue, for it certainly will if his policy for de-escalation continues, considering what is happening over price increases and so on? What effect does he think a fall in real wages over the remainder of this year would have on the already totally unacceptable levels of unemployment?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must take into account not only the movement of wages and prices but also the movement of taxes and social service benefits. This cannot be done over the period of one month to which he referred. Indeed, when he was in office he constantly emphasised that one had to look at these movements


over a considerable period of time—and he was, of course, quite right.

Mr. Jenkins: What is perfectly clear is that reductions in taxation for the great majority of the population up to at least £3,000 a year are balanced by increased charges. Will the right hon. Gentleman face the issue as to whether he intends real wages to fall during the remainder of this year, and will he say what effect he expects this to have on the level of demand, and, therefore, on unemployment?

The Prime Minister: It is no desire of this Government that the real standard of living of the people should fall, whereas it was the firmly expressed intention of the right hon. Gentleman when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, following devaluation, that it should fall. That is not our purpose. Our purpose is that by a change of policies which affect taxation and social service benefits, as well as by a de-escalation of wage settlements, there should be an improvement, and a genuine improvement, in the real standard of living of the people.

Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of anything which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has done to assist the Government in their fight against inflation?

The Prime Minister: However long one's memory, one could not remember anything like that.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us think that some of my hon. Friends are being rather unfair to him by constantly harrying him about prices? For example, does he realise that if we go into the Common Market he will not be able to do anything at all about rising prices? Is he aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made it absolutely clear that we shall be facing 6 per cent. price increases over the next five years—that is, once we have signed the Treaty—and that this process will go on for the foreseeable future?

Mr. Clinton Davis: And the right hon. Gentleman will have one of his strokes.

The Prime Minister: When the Labour Party was in power and decided to apply for admission to the E.E.C., it was the present Leader of the Opposition who said most strongly that, although there might be short-term disadvantages, the long-term advantages for this country were very great, and that they included an improvement in the real standard of living of the people of this country.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

HISTORIC CHURCHES PRESERVATION

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to further the preservation of churches and other religious buildings of historic and architectural importance in England and Wales.
It is currently the fashion to talk of the importance of conservation, preservation and the need to enhance the beauties and advantages of our environment. However, too frequently we merely pay lip service to these things without considering the nature of the problems they present.
I wish today to draw attention to some of the issues we must face if we truly wish to preserve our great heritage of religious buildings—the churches, chapels and cathedrals which contribute so much to the beauty of the landscape, and to the dignity of our towns and which are admired and enjoyed by those of all faiths and of none. Included in the provisions of my Bill would be places of worship of all denominations, wherever they are of architectural distinction or historic importance.
Of necessity, the great medieval treasures of the Established Church are at the centre of the problem. They constitute the finest group of historic buildings in the country. They are a priceless part of the nation's heritage and, because of this, they deserve to be jealously guarded and meticulously maintained, whatever the cost.
Although they are nearly always lovingly cared for, no congregation, however devoted, can control the ravages of industrial pollution and the encroachment of the avaricious and philistine developer. Nor can the dwindling group of worshippers in a changing countryside or an uninhabited town centre always be expected to meet the enormous cost of repairs which inevitably fall due after the wear and use of centuries. My Bill would seek to give these buildings better legislative protection and to help those who struggle to maintain them.
First, it would extend the provisions of the Civic Amenities Act, 1967—the Measure for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)

was responsible—by requiring local authorities to designate conservation areas for the purpose of ensuring the protection of the environs of every cathedral and Grade A church building. It would also require local authorities to consider requests to designate conservation areas in the vicinity of all places of worship of intrinsic architectural and historic importance, particularly where the building was the focal point of town or country scene. By these provisions, it would seek to combat the unthinking and destructive acts of those planners, developers and industrialists who have no regard for architectural beauty or harmony and no sense of history.
But the Bill would attempt to meet the problem of finance as well. I wish that it could place a statutory obligation on the Government to contribute towards the upkeep of some of the nation's greatest assets. After all, the principle of giving aid to historic buildings, even to churches, if they are redundant, has been established; and it is only the continuance of the ecclesiastical exemption of 1913, and reluctance on the part of Church and State to make the first move to end it, that has prevented the extension of this principle. However, there seems something rather quaint in an Established Church and its secular guardian being unwilling to contemplate such a development.
As a private Member, I cannot move the disposal of Government funds, but only those of local authorities. Thus, the Bill would oblige local authorities to use the powers they already have under the Local Authorities Historic Buildings Act, 1962, to make grants to any important religious buildings within their areas; that is, if—and this is an important proviso—the Historic Buildings Council and Historic Churches Preservation Trust judge that repairs or restoration are essential and that the sum involved is manifestly beyond the means of the congregation to raise.
This condition is crucial, for it is no part of my intention to suggest that we should provide a cushion for negligent incumbents or careless congregations or that we should seek to stifle the voluntary appeal. Still less am I casting doubt on the enormous value of the work done in the last 19 years by the Historic Churches


Preservation Trust and, for even longer, by the Anglican Church's Council for the Care of Churches.
But the stark fact remains that while most of our important religious buildings are well cared for and our great cathedrals can generally succeed in raising vast sums through public appeal, hundreds of our finest churches stand in danger because population movements away from small villages and town centres have left them without large congregations to support their absolute needs. The problem is nationwide, although the churches which cause most immediate concern are possibly those in counties like Norfolk and Lincolnshire and in cities like Norwich and York, and we should not forget Parliament's own church of St. Margaret's, Westminster.
These churches are in peril, and it is a scandal that so many should be reduced to selling their movables to keep on their roofs, for tourists as well as for worshippers. Do not let us forget that they are among our foremost tourist attractions and that they are therefore in no small degree responsible for the £450 million which tourism now earns for the country annually.
Again, the need for the sums that they have to find is often in part the result of atmospheric pollution and the vibration of the traffic which thunders past their walls. Here is another factor which the Bill recognises, for it requires the rating authority to accept some degree of responsibility for damage caused in this way.
I realise that the latter provisions will be slightly controversial and that, in any event, a Private Member's Bill is unlikely to pass into law at this stage of the Session. But I hope at least that the publication of the Bill will help bring the problem into focus. There is general agreement that something must be done, and my Bill has support from hon. Members

on both sides of the House and from almost all religious persuasions, including, I might add, two Church Commissioners.
For too long, our heritage has been the Cinderella of the public purse, with architecture the Cinderella of the arts. It is a sobering thought, for example, that the Government contribute substantially less to maintaining our great secular historic buildings than they do to subsidising Covent Garden.
If we can stimulate further thought on the matters that I have raised, the sponsors of the Bill will be well pleased. For my own part, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to introduce a Bill in the new Session containing no financial provisions, because the churches had proclaimed their need publicly and enlisted the sympathy and support of a willing and generous Government.
I trust that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill as an indication of its recognition of a serious problem and of its will to acknowledge our national obligations to those who built these glories in the past, and to those who will enjoy them in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cormack, Mr. Marcus Worsley, Mr. Edward Bishop, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, Mr. David Steel, Dr. Tom Stuttaford, and Mr. Ernie Money.

HISTORIC CHURCHES PRESERVATION

Bill to further the preservation of churches and other religious buildings of historic and architectural importance in England and Wales, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th June, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill provides for a far-reaching and overdue reform. It sets out to put on an equitable footing the arrangements for adjusting, after retirement, the occupational pensions of people for whom the Government, central and local, have a particular responsibility: their own ex-employees. This new footing is, in a phrase, the regular restoration of original purchasing power.
Hon. Members on both sides have advocated radical reform, and hon. Members on both sides have seen Pensions (Increase) Bills come and go without that reform being carried out. I do not mean to belittle the achievements of any of our predecessors when I say that the treatment meted out to many public service pensioners after they have retired has been inadequate and has verged on the shabby. The practice whereby this naturally unvocal section of the community should in effect be compelled to lobby Parliament into producing a Bill every few years is a thoroughly unsatisfactory one. We should stop it. This Bill does just that.
Before I come on to remind the House how this state of affairs arose and to explain the new principles in the Bill which will sweep it away and replace it by a new and fitting system, I should like to define some of the main areas which the Bill does not attempt to cover and to which indeed it is, intentionally, wholly irrelevant. The need for this is all the greater at the present time because there is undoubtedly an unprecedented spate of activity in pensions of one kind and another.
First, the pensions which are the subject of today's Bill are of course entirely separate and quite different from those which are the subject of the National Insurance Bill now before a Committee of this House. That Bill is

concerned, admittedly, with increasing pensions after retirement, but those pensions are social security benefits for which virtually all citizens, including retired public servants, are eligible. There have been misleading comparisons made outside this House between these two Bills. I think it is right to establish here and now that these are quite separate Bills. If further points are raised on these aspects, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will deal with them.
Second, today's Bill does not affect in any way the terms of the pension schemes of the public services—for example, preservation and transferability, the proportion of a husband's pension at which a widow's pension should be fixed, and so on—matters in which many hon. Members have, I know, a close and active interest.
As the House may recall, the schemes themselves are at the moment under separate review jointly between management and staff representatives. The Government have already undertaken, when Parliamentary time is available, to introduce a Bill to alter and simplify the legislative basis of the public service pension schemes and so, among other things, to facilitate such changes as may be agreed in the course of these reviews.
Third, today's Bill applies, as I have said, to the pensioners of what we call the public services. In the main, this means the Civil Service, local government employees, teachers, the National Health Service, the police and fire services, and, in a rather special way to which I shall return, certain overseas services. A glance at Schedule 2 will show that there are many smaller groups ranging from past Prime Ministers to certain London tram-waymen who are also covered by the Bill's provisions. Except in one or two instances where the rights of ex-public servants who are now regarded as the pensioners of the nationalised industries have had to be preserved, the Bill is in no way concerned with the pensions awarded by nationalised industries. These industries already have the power to pay and, when necessary, to increase pensions, and thus, following their own commercial and managerial judgment, either to follow Government practice or not, as the case may be. This is precisely the variety of practice that we find.
Then there are the pensioners of the Armed Forces. They are not covered by the Bill, though, as my statement of 17th November last undertook, comparable provision will be made for the Armed Forces by the appropriate Instruments under the Royal Prerogative. As my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence further explained in answer to a Question on 10th May, the same principles will apply, although necessarily there have to be certain differences in their practical application arising from the special characteristics of Service pensions. So it is correct to say—and I know this is always a matter of particular interest to many hon. Members—that, in discussing the principles of the Bill, we are in fact also discussing the principles that will apply to the Armed Forces.
I now return to those principles and the reform which is founded upon them. I start with the background and the situation in the pensions increase field as we find it.
The Explanatory Memorandum goes into this at some length, and I will not detain the House by repeating it all, very relevant though it is. The point is that Governments in the past have never accepted any precisely defined obligation towards their existing pensioners.
Over 50 years ago the first Pensions (Increase) Act was passed for the purpose of relieving extreme hardship. At the same time it provided a scale of percentage increases, varying according to the size of pension and whether the pensioner was married or single. It gave nothing on pensions over £200. Its increases were further limited so as not to raise the total annual income of any married pensioner above £200 or of any single pensioner above £150. In other words, as well as a stringent criterion of hardship, there was also a means test and a test of family circumstances.
As the White Paper explains, this principle of the relief of hardship remained the common strand through the subsequent 10 Acts up to and including that of 1969. Although hardship has been interpreted with progressively less severity, there has been no objective standard by which increases have been determined and no certainty about the frequency of reviews and thus of increases. So pensioners have never really

known when their next increase would be and on what basis it would be assessed and, therefore, roughly how large it would be likely to be. The defect of the present system lies in some ways almost as much in this total uncertainty as in the scale of increases hitherto provided. There have also been other consequences of this piecemeal and ad hoc approach to the business of increasing pensions which have affected both the pensioners themselves, and the efficiency of administration of the system.
The earlier Acts were heavily biased in favour of the smallest pensions, though without much consistency in the degree and manner of the bias. The last four Acts substituted a bias in favour of the pensions of longest standing. The cumulative effect of all this has been one of some confusion. In particular, those who retired on the larger pensions up to about 1961—though very few would be regarded as large by the standard of present-day incomes—and those who retired in the middle of the 1960s have in general been least compensated for inflation and have thus seen the real value of their pensions drop the furthest.
Into this situation of anomaly and inequity, we now plan to introduce simple principles. Even so, I concede, it remains a complex subject. Indeed, it is a subject which is far more amenable to visual aids than to the type of presentation that is traditional at this Dispatch Box. I am not proposing to seek permission to introduce a blackboard into the Standing Committee, but I am exploring the possibility of producing one or two diagrams which may illustrate some of the more elusive details of the Bill. What makes it an even more formidable-looking task is that we are determined in this, the last Pensions Bill—we hope—to repeal and consolidate the past 11 Acts. This clears up the Statute Book and will simplify administration, but at the price now of a rather more complicated Bill. We therefore decided to offer the House a very full Explanatory Memorandum as well as the Bill.
I should also tell the House that in this whole operation we have been able to consult the representatives of the local authorities and secure their agreement. This is extremely important because they are the other main employer and, as the


Financial Memorandum shows, they bear a significant proportion of the relevant cost.
Many hon. Members will see in this reform features which their parties or they as individuals have advocated from one side of the House or the other in years past. The Conservative Party, in its Election Manifesto, promised two-yearly reviews to maintain purchasing power, but perhaps our particular contribution has been the undertaking to reduce the qualifying age for increases during the lifetime of this Parliament, about which I will say a little more later on. Overdue the House may agree the reform to be, but I believe it to have benefited from the debates over the years in this Chamber and in particular from the public debate which followed my statement of intention to the House on 17th November last year.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal and I have had the benefit of two meetings with the Public Service Pensioners' Council, and another with the T.U.C., speaking for pensioners of local authorities; and of course as Ministers concerned with the Civil Service, we have taken into account the views expressed to us by our own National Staff Side. We have also paid careful heed to the dozens of letters which hon. Members on both sides of the House have written to us, often as a result of some approach to them by pensioners in their constituencies acting singly or in groups, and also to letters the Department has received direct from the public. I can fairly claim that we have changed our original plans in one very significant respect as well as one or two lesser ones as a result of all these exchanges of views as I shall explain.
That is the background. Now I come to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The Bill has five main features, summarised in paragraph 5 of the White Paper. I will follow this division without repeating all that is said in that document.
The first objective is to make good the deficiencies of the past. I have already described the legacy of the eleven Pensions (Increase) Acts. It would be quite inadequate merely to undertake from now on to pay increases in step with any increases in the cost of living,

since that would ossify present relativities and perpetuate the inequities. All pensioners need to be placed on an even footing first, and, since the system of regular reviews really starts from 1st April, 1969, we begin by providing that as at that date all pensions then in payment shall first be restored to their original purchasing power—in all cases, that is, in which the previous Acts had left them below that level.
In the case of the oldest pensions beginning before 1946, we shall adopt the nearest approximation to this approach which is compatible with our objectives of over all fairness and reasonable simplicity of approach. This is a once-for-all operation and the once-for-all increases that will be payable from 1st September are likely in general to range from 1 per cent. to 17 per cent. It is impossible to say exactly how many pensioners will benefit, but the total cost will be about £21 million in a full year, when account is taken of the Armed Forces. There will be quite a number of increases larger than this range and a few which will be much larger in percentage terms.
It follows as a matter of simple mathematics that those who will benefit most in percentage terms from these increases must be those who have suffered most in relation to inflation under the existing Acts. Since, as I have already explained, some of those who suffered most were those who retired on the then larger pensions at the earliest dates, it follows that they will now collect some of the largest increases both proportionately and in absolute terms. To that extent—and I make no apology for it—the Bill is a measure of the degree to which public service pensioners have fallen behind. The restoration of original purchasing power is a completely fair criterion which puts everyone back to their original position in real terms and to their original realativity.
The second main feature brings me on to the system of two-yearly reviews, with the arrangements for this year's review. This is being held following the undertaking subscribed to by both main parties during the passage of the 1969 Act. The promise was to announce the rise in the cost of living between the operative date of the last Act, 1st April, 1969, and 1st April, 1971, and then to say what action would in consequence be taken.
In the event, we did not wait for April but announced our plans last November. We had, of course, to wait for April to learn that the cost of living over this two years had risen by 14·4 per cent. It would accord with my statement of 17th November last if pensions were accordingly increased by that percentage on 1st September. But it is on this point in particular that our proposals have benefited from the representations of the Public Service Pensioners' Council and the other representative bodies I mentioned earlier, as well as the views conveyed to us by hon. Members.
In present circumstances, the Government accept that if no more than this were done the new rates of pension might already be excessively out-of-date when they came into force on 1st September, and on that date we might not be able to claim that we had fully maintained original purchasing power. The Government has accordingly decided that the increase to be payable on 1st September on all pensions which began on or before 1st April, 1969—that is, which have been in payment and thus exposed to inflation throughout the first review period—should be 18 per cent. This is not a forecast and it is not a product of mathematics. It is a judgment based on all the relevant factors of what we believe will be a fair increase, having regard to the objectives of the Bill. If it turns out in the end to be too much or too little, it will be automatically evened out over subsequent years.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I must shortly leave to take the chair at a meeting of a Select Committee. The Bill does not apply to the nationalised industries but in fact many of them have always followed the terms of Pensions (Increase) Acts. If an application comes from nationalised industries to make comparable increases consistent with the provisions of the Bill, will such applications be favourably considered by the Government?

Mr. Howell: The Government will not disapprove of any applications to develop pension schemes up to the levels proposed here. But in terms of policy these are matters entirely for the boards of the nationalised industries.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the schemes of the nationalised industries are statutory schemes and are subject to Ministerial approval.

Mr. Howell: I appreciate that, and if the level and the scope of these schemes do not exceed the levels proposed here there would be no disapproval by the Government.
All those who retired within the review period 1st April, 1969, to 31st March, 1971, will also receive increases. There has been some confusion about this. These increases will be smaller than the 18 per cent. for bringing earlier pensions up to the 1971 levels, through inflation proofing, and will be graded according to the date of retirement and the rise in the cost of living between retirement and the end of the review period. They will include the same kind of uplift as the 18 per cent. to make them appropriate increases to pay on 1st September.
Many pensioners are now writing to hon. Members and to the Department complaining that those who retire just before the review period starts get 18 per cent. and those who retire just after it has begun get nothing. This is quite mistaken. May I emphasise again that in this first review all those who retire within the review period do get increases. They are spelled out in Clause 1 of the Bill. Those retiring in the six months beginning on 1st April, 1969, get 16 per cent., those retiring in the six months beginning 1st October, 1969, get 14 per cent., those retiring in the six months beginning 1st April, 1970, get 10 per cent., and those retiring in the six months beginning 1st October, 1970, get 6 per cent. So, for all those pensions which began on or before 1st April, 1971, the five-month gap between 1st April and the payment date on 1st September can fairly be claimed to be closed.
Future reviews constitute the third main feature. They will be held every other year, starting in April, 1973, and they will lead to increases in the ensuing September, provided that a cost of living increase of at least 4 per cent. has been registered in the two-year review period before that.
Should the cost of living in a review period not have risen by 4 per cent., there will be a further review one year later.
But as soon as a 4 per cent. increase has accumulated and justified increases, the reviews would again become two-yearly. The objective here is to give to pensioners a certainty to which we believe they are entitled, and in the process to provide a more orderly system. The increases this year will, I am sure, be very welcome. But, taking the longer perspective, the heart of the matter is the new assurance, which has been so conspicuously lacking in the past, of when the next review will be, and how the increase will be assessed.
In future, pensioners will be able to watch the movements in the cost of living and to form an accurate view themselves of what they are likely to qualify for at the next review. The essence of the method is simplicity and automaticity. We are asking Parliament to dispense with the need for primary legislation every time there is to be a review. We are asking, instead, for the power to prescribe increases by Order on very clearly defined principles.
Fourthly, I come to the change which is one of those to which my own party has attached particular importance, and for which we can claim special credit for bringing to the forefront. This is the promise we made in our Manifesto—our programme for the whole term of office for which we were elected—to reduce the qualifying age at which increases may first be paid on pensions, from 60 to 55. This step is designed to benefit pensioners who already retire on pension before 60. In other words, for the most part, policemen, firemen, prison officers, as well as, of course, though not directly under the Bill, members of the Armed Forces. The Government fully accept the principle that this change should be made and only regret that they cannot afford to make it immediately. It has been solely a matter of priorities and cost within the overall budget.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is a good thins that local government, Civil Service and Armed Forces pensioners are to be covered by these provisions, but can the hon. Gentleman say why it is proposed to exclude Members of Parliament, who have given perhaps 40 or 50 years service? Why should they not

be treated, not better than, but in the say way as these other people?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will deal with that matter. The short answer is that Members of Parliament' are not covered because they have their own pension scheme.
Perhaps this would be the moment to talk about cost generally. The cost of £79 million is a very substantial sum for the Government to have put aside so promptly, even for so worthy a cause as this, at a time when reductions in Government activity and savings in public expenditure have been sought hard. We do not feel that we could raise it to the £90 million that would be involved by reducing the qualifying age immediately. It is an important change, but we regard the firm establishment of inflation-proofing as priority number one.
The fifth and final feature of the Bill is its element of repeal and consolidation. I shall not occupy the House for long at this stage on this somewhat technical aspect. Its background and implications and the method that we are adopting are explained at some length in the White Paper. But briefly, we are offering the House a measure that will be self-contained when taken with its associated subordinate legislation.
We are aiming to tidy up the Statute Book a great deal, as Schedules 7 and 8 reveal, and we shall simplify administration. A way has been found of repealing all the Acts and saving their many unspent provisions, including particularly those authorising increases, which are still today the legal basis of a large element in the pensions of many existing pensioners, and under which many future pensioners will have contingent rights. This is being done in such a way that the task of paying authorities will be simplified, and administration will become much more efficient.
So much for the main principles of the Bill. There is not time now, in this short debate, to look separately at all the various groups of pensions affected. But there is one group which has always occupied a rather special position, namely, the overseas pensioners, as they have come to be known, covered by Part II of the Bill. First, the India, Pakistan and Burma civil pensioners, and, second,


broadly speaking, the former officers of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service and British pensioners of the Sudan and Egypt Governments and their dependants.
This is one of the groups to which the Bill cannot be applied direct, because their circumstances and needs are complex. Special regulations under the Bill, as under previous Acts, will be required. The categories of overseas pensioners eligible to benefit under the Regulations, which will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, have been widely enough drawn to embrace all those whose pensions fall within the Government's policy of reimbursing to overseas Governments the cost of expatriate pensions arising from pre-independence service.
We have therefore ensured that, for the first time, every overseas pensioner in respect of whom the British Government have a special obligation is covered by pensions (increase) legislation. Subject to the normal qualifying conditions only, all such pensioners will have their pensions brought up to the same level as they would have reached had they been British Government pensioners.

Mr. John Tilney: I, too, have to leave to attend a Select Committee. Is my hon. Friend aware that former overseas service pensioners are grateful for and welcome the Bill, but that a number of those who served in quasi-Government institutions, such as the Nigerian Coal Corporation, were told at the time that they would not suffer by changing over from Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service to that corporation? Will my hon. Friend assure them that they will not be precluded from consideration should they subsequently be able to make their case?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of what he said. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will deal with the second part of my hon. Friend's intervention, but the assurance can be given that all Crown service is pensionable and will be treated as such under the Bill. The terms of the Bill have been drawn in such a way that things can be considered, but I shall ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to deal with this in detail later on.

Mr. R. T. Paget: It is the case that, broadly speaking, these are the people who at the request of Her Majesty's Government transferred to successor Governments who, almost without exception, have let them down. They are now landed, for various reasons, and one hopes that Her Majesty's Government, having induced them to make the change, will stand by them.

Mr. Howell: I appreciate the hon. and learned Member's concern. This is a slightly different point. We were talking just now of those who were public sector employees in former colonial territories but were not in the Crown service. I was able to say that all who had done Crown service of any kind would be fully pensionable and covered by the Bill. Subject only to the normal qualifying conditions, all these pensioners will have their pension brought up to the same level as they would have reached had they been British Government pensioners.
The arrangements by which this will be achieved will be set out in the Regulations. They will take account of the different overseas currencies in which these pensions were awarded and the fluctuations in the rates of exchange between these currencies and sterling which occur from time to time. The proposed method of calculation has been fully explained to the President of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development whose Administration is responsible to Parliament.
Now may I spend a little time on some possible reactions to the Bill. There may be those who think that we are doing too much for retired public servants and there will be those who still think we are doing too little; to those whose first reaction is that we are doing too much, I would at this stage say that the Government believes in being a good employer. In superannuation the Government have perhaps been a pioneer, when one looks back over the more distant past; and it has always been very well up in the league table of good employer practice in this particular field. A good pension system is one of the compensations of public service.
Again, in some quarters the misleading impression has been given that what is being proposed is somehow putting the


civil servant in front of the old-age pensioner in the queue for fair treatment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Viewed across the perspective of the postwar years, this Bill raises public service pensions—in most cases for the first time—up to the standard of inflation-proofing. But over the same period the original national insurance or "old-age" pension has already been raised well above this standard. The same relationship is to be found in this year's increases. This is surely as it should be. Any share in growing national prosperity that is available accrues first to all the retired through the national insurance system.
Finally, I hope that I have made it clear that we could not go on on the basis of the previous Acts. I believe that it was inevitable that we should find some objective and defensible criterion on which pensions should be increased, given the cumulative effect of a somewhat ad hoc approach over the last 50 years. The protection of purchasing power seemed to us to be the only serious candidate that would be fair to all concerned, including the community at large who foot the bill. It is incumbent on anyone who feels that we are doing too much to explain what we should have done instead, and how we should have defended it.
As to those who may say we are doing too little, I suppose that they would agree with what I have just said about a defensible criterion, but would presumably argue for parity or perhaps some halfway house to parity, such as matching increases to a hybrid of cost and wage indices. With such a tremendous advance on offer to pensioners I would rather hope that we shall hear rather less about parity in the forthcoming weeks than my predecessors on both sides of the House heard during the passage of recent Pensions (Increase) Acts. In any event, the House will recall that even in 1969, when inflation-proofing was not on offer, spokesmen on both sides of the House acknowledged the difficulties over parity.
It is not only its much greater cost, it is the highly questionable nature of its inherent assumption that when a man retires you should guarantee him, indirectly through adjustment to his pension, the full benefit that his successors in office have achieved in pay for a great

variety of reasons. I would come back to outside practice. If we were to adopt parity we would be setting the pace in this country and at a hot rate. I believe there are one or two employers here and there who may do something like moving towards parity, but they really are the exception. I do not see how we could defend such preferential treatment for one sector of the community at the expense of the other, which would be precluded almost entirely from comparable treatment.
We must, of course, be philosophic about this. However proud and satisfied a Government may be of a reform of this kind, it will always be asked by some to do better. Nevertheless, this reform is the product of extensive experience and of thought and discussion, in general over the years, and in particular over recent months. We have weighed the views of leading organisations which can claim to be representative for this purpose, and we believe that we have met the only criticism that they have made that could fairly have been claimed to point up a permanent weakness in the scheme, that is the five months' gap between the end of the review period and the date of payment, 1st September.
The Bill that emerges is a major development in the field of public pensions legislation. I hope it will, if passed, spare hon. Members on both sides the burden of constant pensions (increase) legislation and public pensioners the crueller burden of the need for constant lobbying to preserve their living standards. What has been so heartbreaking, as many hon. Members know full well, is to see public service pensioners, having adjusted to more modest standards in retirement, then have to adjust again, and even a third time, downwards into old age. This is the downward escalator we are determined to halt. I believe that this Bill achieves our aim.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: This is the first Bill introduced into this House by the hon. Gentleman, and it will be welcomed on that account alone; furthermore, it is doubly welcome because this is a Bill which will obviously receive wholehearted approval in principle. I would like to give that unqualified approval. It is important also because this is the last Bill of this


kind and it follows a fairly dreary pattern to which we have become used over the years. As such, it ends the requirements for parliamentary approval for pension changes.
In moving the Bill and in accepting the need to hive off this kind of activity, the hon. Gentleman made his case quite strongly. It is, by and large, one which those on this side of the House would also wish to accept. Clearly, the whole method by which Civil Service pensioners had to come to this House in order to get what was obviously a justified increase because of the decline in the value of money is a matter of purely managerial concern which really had no place in the day to day work and operations of this House. These are modest Regulations and they should be seen as something for management and not something over which this House should or ought to have direct administrative control.
The whole principle here was outlined quite well in appendix H of the Fulton Report, at paragraph 30, where it said:
The details of Civil Service superannuation are embodied in Acts of Parliament and in statutory regulations made under the Acts. This means that all changes in the scheme require legislation and that many quite small changes involve not subordinate legislation but a separate Bill. As a result, these changes have to wait for parliamentary time. In consequence, it may be several years before an agreed change can be introduced. We think this to be an unnecessary complication, besides wasting parliamentary time. We do not dispute that Parliament should exercise a proper control over this large element of staff expenditure. But it seems to us that ways could be found of ensuring this that would yet enable changes in the pension scheme to be made more promptly and with less fuss. We recommend that they should be looked for.
It is the achievement of the hon. Gentleman—and nobody would like to detract from it—that he has found a way to meet this recommendation. The Bill is non-partisan and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it is an example of good employment practice which we hope will be copied by many in private industry, just as Government legislation in this field has so often been copied in the past. To echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), I hope it will be copied by the nationalised industries and, in particular, by the Ministers concerned with the nationalised industries as an

example of the way in which public service pensions might be run by those industries themselves. Of course, there will have to be an end to the nuisance of having to produce the Bill each time when we are regularly adjusting to inflation.
Schedule 1 is the crucial part of the Bill, where figures are put on the levels of inflation. This is one of the most interesting aspects of the way in which Governments will in future have to adjust for an inflationary situation to which we are just beginning to become accustomed and will have to fit into in many other ways, particularly if the situation is to be stabilised——

Mr. J, C. Jennings: The figures are given to three decimal places.

Mr. Sheldon: One must remember that to the receiver of one of these pensions that third decimal place can be a pound or two. Someone in that situation would not welcome being docked by only a second decimal place.
So we are now committed to the principle of biennial reviews to take account of inflation.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not getting too embarrassed by my congratulations, but I found the Explanatory Memorandum most useful. I hope that we shall see just such a Memorandum on all these technical Bills when they can be produced for the benefit of those concerned. Paragraph 8 shows that the cost of living increased by 14·4 per cent. from 1st April, 1969, to 31st March, 1971—an average increase of 06 per cent. per month. The general index of retail prices just published shows an increase on April over March—that is the latest figure—of 2·1 per cent. So we are seeing a graphic escalation of inflation.
Under Clause 1, the pensions are being increased by 18 per cent. from 1st April, 1969, to 1st September, 1971. Since the 14·4 per cent. is for 24 months, allowance is made for an increase in the cost of living of 18 less 14·4–3·6 per cent. That is the level of inflation expected over these five months. Out of that 3·6 per cent., 2·1 per cent. is already spoken for.

Mr. David Howell: The hon. Gentleman said that this is an estimate of the


amount of inflation over the five months. That is not so. This is simply an allowance which may be too little or too much. At the next review, in April, 1973, which will cover the 24 months back to April, 1971, this will be corrected for and taken into account.

Mr. Sheldon: Yes, I understand that it will be taken into account at the next review, but obviously an estimate was made to produce what was thought to be a reasonable level of inflation. I am not making too much of this. Clearly, in a delicate political and economic situation one would hardly expect the Government to make a precise forecast for this five months; and they would tend to produce a rather lower figure.
But out of that 3·6 per cent., 2·1 per cent. is already spoken for in one of the five months, with four months still to go. This shows how much greater the level of inflation is than the figure allowed for in that five months. But we have only 1½ per cent. allowed for over the remaining four months. Because of this inflation, what might have been regarded as a reasonable figure—in certain circumstances almost a generous figure—now becomes rather less than that.
Clause 2 provides that if the rise in the cost of living is less than 4 per cent. over the 2 years the actual review will be postponed for a year. This is unlikely for some considerable time. Inflation seems to be permanently with industrialised countries. Although one hopes for a new Keynes to find some solution to this, that solution will not come very soon.
As a result, so far from the problem being one of having to postpone the biennial review because the cost of living happens to be less than 4 per cent., it is rather more likely that the variations in inflation might impose severe hardships on those pensioners waiting for their biennial review. At present the rate is 9½ per cent., and who knows what it will be next year if the Government's policies are not successful?
To have to wait for increases of nearly 20 per cent. at one go is a substantial jump, and annual reviews might be necessary. How difficult might this be to provide for, if inflation is more akin to the recent past rather than a number of years

ago? This matter might need further consideration in the light of the success or otherwise of the Government's economic policies.
I said that this reform is one of the consequences of Fulton. Another is transferability. Under the heading "The Civil Service as a Career", Fulton said something which has not received much attention in the House:
We have recommended a greater flexibility of movement between the Civil Service and other employments. We think, however, it should remain a career service, in the sense that most civil servants should enter at young ages with the expectation, but not the guarantee, of a lifetime's employment.
This is of course perfectly in accord with the situation over large sections of industry and other forms of public service.
Prospects are more open. The possibilities of achievement are greater, but the necessary corollary of that is that security, marginally—I hope not much more than marginally—is bound to be a little less. With movement into and out of the Civil Service, cross-fertilising many of its methods of operation, we shall also see, not large numbers but rather important kinds, of people bringing a breath of fresh air to the Civil Service. I hope that people entering the Civil Service will take back into private industry some useful knowledge of the working of Government service.
The consequence of any reorganisation, however beneficial, and however efficient and humane, is bound to be individual problems, which will be the responsibility of the Civil Service Department. As a result, there will be difficulties concerning the necessity for premature retirement and a question of amending what has been called the "old divorce laws—the great difficulties in dismissing civil servants who, through no fault of their own, have frequently become worn out in the public service, possibly by over-application of their energies or because not everyone is fitted for the severe testing which is frequently part of the work of the Civil Service. There should be no stigma to this, but fair treatment is necessary in carrying out the reorganisation if human and social problems are not to occupy too prominent a position and so affect the morale and work of civil servants.
I was pleased to see the paper produced this month on premature retirement by the Department. I think the hon.


Gentleman has seized this point and that action is being taken to provide humane and reasonable conditions for those who retire at an early age. I am also pleased to see that the Government have accepted so many of the arguments for transferability. I am not sure to what extent they accept that certain provisions of the pension scheme restrict movement in and out of the Civil Service. Changes are necessary to allow greater flexibility of movement.
Paragraph 138 of Volume 1 of the Fulton Report points out that the Service needs:
… to offer improved pension arrangements where these are needed to attract into the Service individual late entrants with special ability, qualifications or experience, who are unable because of the shortness of their prospective period of service to earn a good pension by the time they reach the retiring age.
This will become increasingly important as individuals in the public service and industry recognise the necessity for acquiring pension rights over a term of service less than the whole of their working life span in any one organisation.
I draw attention to the advantages of the contributory scheme which in 1931 was advocated by the Tomlin Commission. A contributory scheme would get away from the paternalistic attitude which is an inevitable accompaniment of a non-contributory scheme. For the employer to be seen giving money, with no contribution coming from the employees, mitigates against the right kind of relationship in discussions about the rules and method of operation of the scheme. When employees are discussing a scheme to which they contribute, they get away from this paternalistic attitude and become more personally involved in discussions. It is also easier to have a pension scheme that fits in with those in outside industry.
I refer to one aspect of the qualifying period which is referred to in paragraph 10 of Appendix H of the Fulton Report:
We think that in a number of cases the optimum length of a man's employment in the Civil Service may well fall between five and ten years, and that if periods of this length remain unpensionable they will not be attractive. We recommend accordingly that five years should be substituted as the qualifying period both for a frozen pension and (because they are inseparable) for a pension on final retirement.

This will become of increasing concern to specialists moving in and out of the Civil Service. What provision will be made for such people?
We are approaching the stage when more people working in industry and in the Civil Service will require a contribution from each of their employers for that part of the eventual pension which is attributable to service with each employer. For example, if an employee works for 20 years with each of two employers each employer should contribute towards half of his eventual pension, so that at the end of his working life he is no worse off than if he had worked for a single employer. What is the attitude of the Civil Service Department on this?
Section 2 of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1965 introduced for the first time necessarily complicated provisions for pensions for people who had been employed in the Civil Service at different levels of responsibility, and for those who stepped from higher responsibilities down to lower ones. This operation, which was rare some years ago, will obviously increase. There will be greater need to employ people over 60. These people are often suitable for service in a different capacity. People must be made to feel that they are not held in any less esteem because they accept less responsible jobs when they have passed the peak of their abilities. Stepping down is not now readily acceptable. This is a pity, since many people retain their energies into their 60s and 70s, and for them to go from the extremely busy life of the Civil Service into complete retirement is a waste of their energies and abilities. We need to give increasing attention to providing opportunities for people who wish to do something less strenuous and less time-consuming. I know civil servants of over 60 who have a lot of energy—far more than is frequently to be found among employees in industry. Society must find better ways of utilising the energies of these people who are often willing and anxious to do a less responsible job.
I wish to draw attention to the provisions for certain categories of pensions, particularly the overseas pensioners, who are dealt with in Clause 10. We welcome this long-overdue reform and we wish the idea well. There are difficulties in


providing exact comparisons, but we can discuss these matters in Committee. We also welcome the principle of the reduction in qualifying age from which pension increases may be paid. We look forward to seeing the Order that will one day be laid before the House.
I turn to the concept of establishment, which has not received a great deal of attention in the House since it was first put forward in the Fulton Report. I quote from paragraph 142 which, dealing with the concept of establishment, says:
.it should be abolished. The term 'establishment' has acquired overtones of comfort and complacency, and damages the reputation of the Service More important, the concept of established status has engendered an atmosphere within the Service that in practice, though not in theory, offers too much protection. It is not true that a civil servant once established, is completely secure in his job. however lazy or inefficient he may be. But establishment has come to imply a presumption of security until retirement, which goes beyond what is genuinely needed and, we believe, hampers the elimination of the small minority who do not earn their keep.
The language there might be a little over-strong, but the point about establishment and the need to replace it by a contract of indefinite period of employment after a probationary period and consequent pensionability is obviously a step in the right direction.
I note that it is said in paragraph 104 of the document "The Reshaping of the Civil Service":
The Official Side have accepted the Staff Side's claim that unestablished staff with ten years' service or more should automatically be established at 60 and so qualify for pension.
It is a pity that this was never carried out before,
I regret that the wider question of pensionability of temporary staff is still only under consideration. This is something which is so obviously needed, and I am sure that, given the great need for pensionability of these temporary staff, any problem lying in the way of its solution could be overcome. Why are there still so many temporary staff? Very few industries employ so many thousands of temporaries. If the need for them exists, why can they not be put on a proper pensionable footing? There is a need for a proper review of the situation to examine why temporaries seem to be temporary year after year after year. Perhaps

it is due to the problems of establishment, and that what is required is a simple contract of service with a pension.
In the last few years we have seen many reforms and some people were rather sceptical of the ability and will in the Civil Service to undertake its own reforms. We seem to have been very fortunate with the personalities involved, who have included Sir William Armstrong, a dedicated reformer, to whom I wish to pay a particular tribute. There are difficulties, but even the strongest sceptic would have difficulty in proving that the will does not exist. I hope that this attitude will continue, and I look forward to seeing in future the kind of Civil Service which the country needs and upon which it can depend.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: It is with great pleasure that I support the Bill. I give it the warmest welcome I could ever give to a public service pensions Bill; I regard it as the best Bill we have ever had in this sphere. Public service pension increases have had a long and dismal history in this House. As I look around the House today, I see right hon. and hon. Gentlemen—fewer in number now than they were—who over the years, irrespective of the side of the House on which they sat, have fought for a group of people who were forced to provide a lobby for themselves, inadequate as it was. The Bill puts right certain matters which were neglected in the past.
I remember that the immediate predecessor of the present Mr. Speaker, with others, including myself and the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), played a great part in this sphere of activity. In the old days we sought parity as the ideal, but we realised many years ago that we would never achieve it. When I first started talking about this type of pension in 1956 the figure then given to achieve parity was £11 million, which seemed to be within the compass of Treasury thinking at that time. However, within a few months the estimate had risen to £22 million, and over the years whenever we dared mention parity the figure became at the time of the last pensions increase Bill over £120 million. We realise that the matter had become impossible.
We tried to achieve some semblance of parity in whatever we could squeeze from the Government concerned and we did not get much out of it. We had "estimated clauses", compensatory benefits and all sorts of other things. However, in this Bill we at least put right one grave injustice. This is the once-and-for-all payment which brings the basic pension of those who retired in years gone by up to the 1969 standard.
I would draw attention to Schedule 1 of the Bill, which is a remarkable document and contains the "crunch" of the provisions. Since it deals with the effect of inflation, it marks a tremendous step forward. One of the prime principles embodied in the Schedule is the fact that before any calculation of any increases under the Bill take place there shall be a multiplier to compensate for the inflationary processes of past years. For example, someone who retired in 1950 would have his or her pension doubled before the 18 per cent. increase is added The 18 per cent. increase is based on the new pension. Am I wrong?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I would not wish my hon. Friend to be misled. One has to take into account any increases which that pensioner may have had under previous Bills. Applying the multiplier provides the target or the ceiling. If any increases awarded in the past take that pensioner part of the way towards the ceiling, it is only the balance which is made up by the operation of the Bill. That takes one to 1969. The 18 per cent. is added afterwards.

Mr. Jennings: I am glad of the correction. I was taking it at its face value, which is not as handsome as I thought. I admit to mistakes in this House—and even when I am in the Chair in Committee. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was probably quite correct to shake his head. Nevertheless, it is a tremendous step forward. The multiplier is one of the cardinal principles of the Bill.
We then come to the second basic principle—the increase of 18 per cent. in all pensions before 1st April, 1969, and thereafter—I will not go into the details; they are all in the Bill—a kind of sliding scale downwards. It is a kind of escalator

in reverse. Nevertheless, the basic increase is 18 per cent. and it compensates up to next September for the rise in the cost of living.
In Committee my hon. Friend will probably have to face one or two important Amendments. I think that one will be based on the view that the Government have taken in basing the increase on the cost of living index. We must remember that other factors have to be taken into account. One is the rise in wages. Rises in wages and in the cost of living are parallel movements. In assessing compensatory payments for inflation no Government can afford to take notice of one of the ingredients without looking at the other. Therefore, I suggest that one way of approaching the problem—this is an excellent Bill which does more than any other Bill has done in this regard—is to look at the cost of living index and the wages index rise, to take a mean or average of the two and apply that to the consideration of the rise. I do not know what the extra cost would be, but it would not be all that much. I gather that, broadly speaking, it would mean an increase of 24 per cent. instead of 18 per cent. If the cost is £65 million, as the Financial Memorandum states, then it would be reasonably easy to work out what the extra cost would be. As I said, I think that the Government will probably have to face an Amendment or Amendments along these lines in Committee.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Do I take it that if such Amendments are moved the hon. Gentleman will support them?

Mr. Jennings: That is a straight question deserving a straight answer. The hon. Gentleman knows me quite well from long experience. Whenever I have advocated anything in this House I have not hesitated to go into whichever Lobby I wished. In order to nail the point, what gives me so much pleasure this afternoon in welcoming the Bill is that compared with events of the past few days it is a change for me. I welcome it as such. I shall not go into that subject further, because I should be out of order. I merely wish the hon. Gentleman to know that if I put down an Amendment or put my name to one my vote will follow my voice, as it always


has in this House. Therefore, there is no need to question anything like that.
My last point concerns the biennial review. This is a tremendous step forward. We had to lobby and lobby, pressurise and pressurise, table question after question year after year, month in, month out, until finally a Minister of either Government would say, "Yes, we will produce something." Now we know something definite. The biennial review is a great step forward. But some of us will probably be putting down Amendments to reduce the two years period. As so many industries automatically now get annual wage increases—some even at shorter periods—it is unfair that pensioners should be placed at a disadvantage compared with the rest of the community.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government argue against having an annual increase they ought at least to make sure that they project the increases for the first twelve months and try to estimate at the end of that period that the cost of living is about equal to the allowance to be made?

Mr. Jennings: That would mean looking into the crystal ball and, depending on which side of the House one is, how clear or how muddy the crystal ball is. Therefore, I shall not attempt to do that or even to answer the intervention. Nevertheless, in fairness to pensioners, it would be a good thing if the Government would consider reducing the biennial review to an annual review.
I am grateful to the Government for producing the Bill. It is a landmark in public service pensions history and will be appreciated by many people who in the past have lobbied us to support them. I commend the Bill to the House.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I join with the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) in thanking the Government for introducing the Bill. From this Government it is a Bill for which we should be grateful.
I remain a believer in the principle of parity. Armed Services pensioners are in some degree in a special case because they retire so much earlier on

average than most other pensioners. Concerning the Armed Services, parity was the official policy of my party when last in Opposition. I had the unhappy job of giving that pledge on their behalf from that Dispatch Box during that period. It was one of the unhappiest things I ever did in view of the result.
The same pension for the same work is a principle of justice. It is also, from a Government, a principle of honesty. Pensions, after all, are part of wages, and to pay those pensions in money which has been made bad by one's own policy is not something which, Governments apart, could be regarded as honest behaviour. Yet that is what we have done. At present pensions for men who served in the 1914–18 war are, in the case of officers, about one-quarter and, in the case of other ranks, about one-third of the pensions being paid today. When we compare the terrible conditions and dangers in which First World War pensions were earned with the conditions of comfort and relative safety in which the later ones were earned, we find a terrible injustice in the difference.
The Bill goes some way to closing that gap, and I congratulate the Government upon it. But why do the inflation figures in Schedule 1 stop at 1944? We are dealing with many pensioners, particularly widows, whose pensions go back a good deal further than that. I appreciate that the multiplier is a multiplication of the basic figure, and not of subsequent increases. If the multiplier of the old pensions is more than three, that brings them up to something over one-half of the pensions paid to their contemporaries today. It is not awfully good, but it is a good deal better.
My only other point is concerned with the Colonial Service. Here is a position which ought to be very much on our conscience. We have wound up an empire. We have given independence to one country after another, and at the independence ceremonies the new Governments have expressed their intense gratitude to the civil servants that worked for them. Those same civil servants have been urged to continue in service, and promises have been made to them. I do not think that there is a single instance in which these new Governments have not ratted on the promises they gave to expatriates. Yet, we urged


those men to carry on. It is very important, in decency and self-respect as well as humanity, that we should stand by the promises to those people which were broken by our successors. The Bill goes some way in some instances to fulfil those obligations. It could go a great deal further, and I hope that it will be in order in Committee to move Amendments to that effect.
I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your having enabled me to take part in the debate. I explained to Mr. Speaker that I have another urgent appointment, and I hope that the Minister who is to reply will not consider it discourteous of me if I cannot be here when he replies. I have almost never spoken in a debate without being present for the reply in the years I have been in the House, and I am extremely sorry to find myself in this position today.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), because in his concluding remarks he referred to a case parallel to one which was brought to my notice at lunchtime today. I have not had an opportunity to check the facts, but I accept without question the integrity and accuracy of my informant. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to those colonial Governments which since independence have not wholly honoured their obligations. I wish to raise just one case which falls within that category, and which, if my facts are correct, strikes me as appalling.
I understand that the pensions of those accredited civil servants who have served abroad are drawn from the territories in which they served, and depend on the integrity of the local government. In many cases these obligations have been honoured, but at a rate that does not take account of inflation. The case about which I was told today mystified me. The person concerned is dead. He originally ran away from school, joined the Royal Navy in World War I, served thereafter in the Royal Irish Constabulary until 1921—though so far as I know he was not an Irishman but a Scot, then returned to Scotland, where he joined the local police, subsequently he went to Malaya as a senior police officer, was captured during World War II and spent

two or three years in Changi Gaol. He then went on to Hong Kong, and was subsequently nominated by the Foreign Office to advise two overseas Governments in police matters. At the end of the day, he received a pension. Since he died his widow receives a pension of £500 a year, which seems to me a fairly poor reward for a lifetime of service abroad by a senior officer, albeit in various territories.
It was put to me at lunchtime that there cannot be all that many persons in that category, so what is the argument against the United Kingdom's accepting responsibility for such persons? The note I made on the back of my aeroplane ticket was, "Why not take under our wing?" I do not know the answer, nor how many people are involved in that kind of category, but I should very much like to know the answer.
I make no pretensions to having been in the House as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) or to have been involved in the subject for as long. When he talks about 1956, it makes me feel rather junior. But I, too, give an unreserved welcome to the Bill, not out of a sense of loyalty to the Government but as a statement of genuine pleasure at its contents.
Like the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, I still have hankerings after the concept of parity. I am not prepared to go to the wall for it, but I feel that the Bill goes such a long way that it is only one relatively short further step to the attainment of parity. I accept the arguments about the cost that would be involved, which are obviously somewhat daunting.

Mr. Paget: That cost is the measure of the injustice. As the cost goes up, that precisely measures the extent of the injustice which is being inflicted.

Mr. Pounder: I was coming on to this point, that those who receive a pension as a result of contributions during their working life are in a somewhat different category from those whose pension is a form of deferred salary, as in non-contributory schemes and Civil Service schemes. That is why I fall back on the parity concept, because in a sense we have not overpaid our civil servants, but we expect them to do a difficult job. At the same time, we have tended to quibble


about the concept of parity. I cannot understand why a person who holds a job at a given rank after a certain length of service should either benefit if he retires now or be penalised if he retired 20 years ago, merely because circumstances have changed, because inflation has resulted in higher salaries and therefore a higher pension when the person has retired.
Unfortunately, pensions legislation by its nature, whether in the public service sector or any other, is absolutely riddled with anomalies. I do not say that by way of criticism. The Bill goes a long way towards eliminating anomalies. But when I was reading the Explanatory Memorandum—one of the finest documents of its kind that I have ever read—I was nevertheless a little confused by the actuarial complexities which I thought were inherent in the implementation of the Bill. I hope that we can avoid the creation of a further set of anomalies, because it seems unfortunate that, try as one does, pensions legislation seems to be bedevilled with unfortunate examples of people who seem to be left out for no good reason, and this can only be described as an anomalous situation.
I particularly welcome the fact that a two-yearly review is now written into the Bill and that we shall move from this ghastly situation which we have had for so long that public service pensioners, and pensioners generally, are to a large extent dependent on the whim of the Administration of the day for any increase they may receive.
On the subject of widows, if I may be personal about it, I think inevitably of my mother-in-law, who is the widow of a civil servant. I notice that under Clause 3(4) there is a reference to the
… services of the pensioner's deceased husband …
and the pension payable will not be increased unless the pensioner meets certain requirements. Do I assume that any increase in pension for the widow is related to the original pension which the husband would have received and thus to the widow's pension she is currently receiving as a widow? There must be considerable difference between the pension rate which was originally granted and the pension rate at the date of death

of the husband. I am assuming that in this case the widow receives an increase on the original pension rather than at the rate appertaining at the date of her husband's death. I hope I am wrong in this assumption, because it seems unfair, but nevertheless I should be glad if my assumption were correct.
Following up the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who referred to quasi Government civil servants, or, as a document produced by the Overseas Service Pensioners Asociation refers to them, the "forgotten men", though that is a somewhat emotive description of those persons, I am inclined to agree that it is manifestly unfair that those persons who are engaged through the Crown Agents or some similar organisation should go to overseas territories to all intents and purposes on the same basis, with the same rank, doing the same kind of jobs and bound by the same rules as colonial civil servants were and are, and be in this separated category.
Judging again by the document sent to me, there do not appear to be all that many persons involved in this case. I am open to correction but, as I understand it, it is those who, once upon a time, worked for the Achimota College, Ghana, the Nigerian Coal Corporation and the Lagos Town Council—all in West Africa. There cannot be that many. Therefore, I should have thought that in the interests of equity and justice, there is a strong case for bringing those people in under the umbrella of the Bill. Indeed, they should have been brought in a very long time ago. It seems that even if one uses the economic and not the moral argument, it cannot cost all that much to bring these people under the net.
Arising out of the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister when he introduced the Bill and when he said that those who have done Crown service at any time will be covered—I hope that I wrote down his words correctly—do I assume that if a person has done Crown service at any time and has subsequently been involved in other things, his pension will merely relate to that very small portion of the time he spent on Crown service and that presumably the factor calculation will take into account that figure? What happens to the person who did Crown service at one stage and


then moved into this quasi field? Does he just get the benefit for the period of Crown service or is the quasi period taken into account where at some stage he has been a fully accredited Crown servant?
I conclude by expressing my wholehearted delight, pleasure and agreement with the Bill. I hope that my observations and questions are not deemed to be highly critical. They are really seeking information. I wish the Bill a very speedy passage to the Statute Book.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Perhaps I ought to declare an interest in the Bill. Before I came to the House I paid contributions to the teachers' superannuation fund. Whilst I did not pay enough to qualify for pension, the vicissitudes of political life being what they are, I may well qualify at some time in the future.
The Bill is very important and the Minister has rightly stressed that. It is because of its importance that we ought to get it right this time. It is a complicated Bill. Any Bill which sets out to get rid of anomalies arising from a number of Bills in the past must be complicated.
I noticed that when the Minister referred to visual aids he regretted that he could not take a blackboard into the Committee room. I, too, regret that. At present, borough and district councils are putting into their committee rooms not only blackboards but screens so that they can put to members of committees the details and features of what is to be done. It is a pity that we are so out of date.
The Bill is wrong in principle on two points. One is on basing increases in pensions on increases in the cost of living. I criticised my Government for making this part of its national superannuation Bill on national insurance pensions, and I make the same criticism of this Bill. I have no doubt that I shall be making the criticism of the Pensions Bill which will be introduced by the Government in the next Session.
I do not think that there is a case for basing increases on the cost of living. Inflation-proofing pensions, as it is called, is not enough. Whichever Government

has been in power, we have had a steadily rising standard of living for the people who are employed, and the same rise in standard of living ought to apply to those on pension. Indeed, in the debate on the Crossman Bill I moved an Amendment on those lines, and one of the points made by the Minister then was that the national insurance pension had, under both Governments, risen not only at a greater rate than the cost of living but at a greater rate than the rise in wages. But that is not true for public service pensions, which have lagged a great deal behind. After a fashion they have kept pace with the cost of living, but usually after considerable delays and a great deal of lobbying.
If we are to have an increasing standard of living, pensioners ought to share it, and public service pensioners, especially—who are not the highest paid people in the world—ought to have their share. I heard the Minister's objection that this would be hotting up the pace too much for the other occupational pensions. The Government ought to hot up the pace for occupational pensions, some of which are inadequate. It is no use the Minister taking credit for the leadership which Governments have been given in the past on superannuation schemes and not taking that lead in the future.
Another reason why it should be tied to incomes is that it has been said that there is no fund and that the payments are made from the contributions of those working at the time. There will be an increase in pension over two years if the cost of living is over 4 per cent. in that time. No doubt over the next six years the rise in the cost of living will be more than 2 per cent. a year. Without going into the subject which the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) did not want to mention, there is no doubt that it could happen that there was a steady but small increase in the cost of living without these pensioners getting an increase.
My other criticism is of the two-year period for review. This is another matter about which I moved an Amendment to my Government's National Insurance Bill. The last year of inflation should have taught us that two years is too


long a period for pensioners to wait before having their pensions reviewed. In emergencies, trade unions do not wait for two years before putting in a claim. The teachers, one of the groups affected, did not wait two years when there was inflation; they put in for an interim award and got it. The same thing ought to apply to pensioners.
Manufacturers and shopkeepers do not wait for two years before putting up prices. Local authorities do not raise their rates every two years—they do it every year. The Chancellor does not have a Budget every two years—he has one every year, sometimes even more than one a year if there has been an election in the summer. Why pick on the pensioners for the two-year wait?
I urge the Government to consider this seriously. An annual review is not administratively impossible. With the machinery and methods that we now have, the work entailed is nothing like the work that would have been involved a few years ago. While I welcome the increase in pensions which will result from the Bill, and the rationalisation of the system, I urge the Government to consider these points carefully.

5.22 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: This Bill brings such manifest benefits that I am certain it is welcomed on all sides regardless of party. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) mentioned some back-benchers—of whom he is certainly one—including the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who over the years have taken part in these debates. While I congratulate my hon. Friend upon bringing this Bill forward I believe that it is a triumph for back-benchers. We sometimes wonder whether what we say has much effect on Government, whichever party is in power. I believe that the driving force for this Bill has come from the back benches of both sides of this House.
One word which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton did not mention in his speech and which we have now demolished is the word which I know the right hon. Member for Sowerby will remember—he may well have used it at

the Dispatch Box—and that is the word "immutability". We were told that pensions were immutable, nothing could be done about them. That has gone, the word has been buried by the Bill.
Having praised the introduction of the Bill, it may seem churlish to criticise. I want to make one point and hope that such criticisms as I make are constructive. There is a body of opinion—we have heard it today—which advocates parity of pensions—so that a person's retirement pension is kept up-to-date. I have never advocated that and I do not think that my party has. I appreciate the difficulties about recruitment, the change in character of the jobs and so on. Although as the hon. and learned Member said, his party at one stage seemed committed to this when it was in office, it did not bring it in, for good reasons, I think.
One feature of these public service pensions which has worried both sides of the House and provided the driving force resulting in the Bill is the fact that those who have retired in earlier years fall further and further behind those who retire today. That is partly due to rising prices eroding the value of their pensions but it is also due to the fact that, having got rid of the expression "immutability of pensions", the pension provisions for those still working have greatly improved. I presume that that process will continue.
The proposals for a percentage increase to compensate for the rise in the cost of living are excellent. If the cost of living goes up 10 per cent. then the pension goes up 10 per cent. That is fair enough but it means that of two persons who have retired, while both will get an increase in pension, the person who has retired most recently will in all probability get the biggest increase, in some cases very much greater than someone who retired a few years earlier.
I believe that the needs of the person who has been retired longest are probably greatest. Under the Bill that person will fall further behind in his pension. That is basically unfair. It is reasonable to say that such standards as we enjoy in this country are due at least as much to the efforts of those who retired in earlier years as to the efforts of those who are working or retiring today. While we may not accept parity in pensions within the meaning of the expression, we should aim at—and here I would like to


coin a phrase—parity in increases, at least for persons of similar status. That is the principle on which the national retirement pension is given. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this, or else we shall be back to the old problem of the gap getting wider and wider. Methods could be devised and it would not be too expensive.
I welcome the Bill. It marks a great step forward and it will bring much-needed help to many devoted ex-public servants. They cannot, by the nature of their work, be vocal politically. That is all the more reason why we should protect their interests.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: I got the impression from the opening remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) that, like certain pension schemes, there was a certain qualifying period during which one had to be a Member of this place before being allowed to speak on Measures of this kind. I therefore feel somewhat hesitant in speaking, in my first Parliament, on this subject.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. It makes proper recompense to those who have served the community in many ways. As the Minister said, one need only read the Schedule to realise the wide range of public servants for whom we are making proper provision in the Bill.
I am more enthusiastic than the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton about the idea of parity, and it seems that the Bill goes a long way towards introducing the principle of a dynamic pension relating to cost-of-living increases. However, I hope that it will be found possible to incorporate increases in the standard of living in our arrangements in this sphere so that higher standards are reflected in the pensions we pay to our retired public servants. We could then hope that that practice would spread to all occupational schemes.
I wish to direct most of my remarks to the powers which the Minister is taking in Clause 12(2), which gives him discretionary power to make regulations conferring on, for example, those who
are or were subject to a superannuation scheme operated under the Federated Superannuation System for Universities

the benefits which
appear to the Minister to be appropriate having regard to the benefits provided
under earlier parts of the Bill.
Perhaps I should, at this point, declare an erstwhile interest as one who was superannuated under the F.S.S.U. until entering this House. I am at present not a member of that scheme, and as far as I can see I am unlikely ever to receive any benefit from the provisions of this Measure. I am sure that retired university teachers and other pensioners who have been members of the F.S.S.U. will welcome Clause 12 and the powers given under it to the Minister.
It is not always realised that the F.S.S.U. extends in scope beyond the universities. A number of people in Government research establishments as well as a significant number of civil servants in the Treasury, and perhaps in the Civil Service Department, enjoy both its benefits and its disadvantages.
In previous Pensions (Increase) Acts, Ministers have taken power to increase supplementation for retired members of the F.S.S.U. to ensure that they do not suffer from inflation any more than other public sector pensioners suffer. The F.S.S.U. scheme has many advantages, particularly because of its flexibility, and in the past the scheme has been found particularly appropriate for university life.
One of its disadvantages, and a particularly serious one until 1960, was that a bad selection of insurance policies taken up early in one's working career, or alternatively a rapid rate of inflation towards the end of a university teacher's life, could result in considerable hardship during retirement. Now, thanks to supplementation, the F.S.S.U. has certain attractive elements of a gamble, and one cannot lose too badly. University teachers have been grateful that since the Hale Report, supplementation has ensured that any pension under the F.S.S.U. is at a reasonable level and that, subject to the passage of Pensions (Increase) Acts, the increases in those Measures have subsequently taken account of inflation.
Clause 12 merely gives the Minister power to make further post-retirement increases to F.S.S.U. pensioners, unlike earlier Clauses which approve specific increases to other public sector pensioners. May we have an assurance that


the powers under Clause 12 will be exercised in such a way that F.S.S.U. pensioners receive increases comparable with those given elsewhere in the public service?
Many people feel that a variety of factors, including last year's and this year's Finance Bills, have substantially changed the reasons for the special situation of F.S.S.U. and have created a rather new situation for university teachers' superannuation. They have provided strong arguments for those who would advocate the setting up of a scheme more comparable to other schemes in the public sector. A change of this sort would ensure that it would be possible in future to assimilate increases given to other pensioners in the regular two-year review to those under the F.S.S.U., and a university superannuation scheme might make this possible.
May we have an assurance that it would be possible to introduce a university superannuation scheme that would technically qualify for the regular two-year review provided for in earlier parts of the Bill? Or would it be necessary to make a further amendment to the Bill to ensure that such a scheme would qualify for the regular two-year review?
As the Financial Secretary suggested to me on Second Reading of the Finance Bill, the present system of supplementation imposes a considerable burden on the Treasury. I am delighted to say that this Bill will, if the Minister exercises his powers, increase that burden of supplementation on the Treasury. However, there are in the long run strong arguments for a change in the form of university teachers' superannuation.
I understand that the F.S.S.U. Council has worked out detailed proposals for a university superannuation scheme and that they have been discussed with the Civil Service Department. May we have an assurance that a decision about this new scheme will be made in the very near future, in order to remove the uncertainty which has surrounded university superannuation in recent years? I hope that, elsewhere, it may be possible to persuade the Government to honour the assurances that were given last year about the position of existing members of the F.S.S.U.
How wide are the powers given under Schedule 6, part of which seems to refer back to Clause 12? We are told that people in
any other employment specified for this purpose by regulations of the Minister for the Civil Service
may have extended to them increases in superannuation by the Minister. It seems that that might even allow him to make regulations along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and to increase the pensions of Members of this House. However, I am not certain that Schedule 6 would permit him such discretion.
This is a generous Measure to the public sector and I hope that the Minister will assure us that present and former university teachers will benefit in the same way as members of other parts of the public sector.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: I ought to begin by apologising for my absence during part of the debate, which was due to the Government's insistence on pushing their Immigration Bill through Committee before the Whitsun Recess. However, I came into the Chamber in time to hear the Minister say that the nationalised industries would be free to act according to their commercial judgment, the implication being that this Measure did not cover the nationalised industries and that they were free to formulate schemes of their own. However, that is not so, as we have seen in recent weeks in the case of the Post Office.
I have to declare an interest at this point. I am an official of the Post Office Engineering Union, and I have followed that union's negotiations very carefully. In common with other nationalised industries, the superannuation schemes of the Post Office are controlled by the Government. The Post Office Act, 1970, makes it clear that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has to give his approval to any superannuation scheme negotiated between the unions and the Post Office.
A scheme was negotiated between the unions and the Post Office and submitted to the Minister in the autumn of 1970. Far from the Post Office and the unions


being free to adopt the scheme that they wanted, the Minister delayed approval of the scheme for several months and, although it had been agreed that it should come into operation on 1st April, it has not been possible yet to implement it. There are four points which the Minister does not accept. Unless he changes his mind, it will be impossible to implement the agreement.
The four points, one of which is of particular importance in this debate, were first that the Minister refused in the Post Office superannuation scheme to allow the provision which is in the Civil Service scheme whereby members retiring on grounds of ill health could have their pensions based on 20 years' service when they have served at least 10 years but not 20 years. Another point that the Minister could not approve was that where a Post Office pensioner who had drawn his gratuity and was drawing a pension was re-employed by the Post Office, he should not suffer any pension abatement. The Minister would not approve the agreement between the unions and the Post Office that there should be a five-year guaranteed pension Fourthly, what is probably most important from the point of view of the debate, the Minister could not approve the provision for yearly adjustments of pensions in line with increases in the index of retail prices. However, he has agreed to the biennial adjustments which are provided for in the Bill.
Far from the nationalised industries having freedom in their choice of superannuation schemes, they are closely supervised and controlled by Ministers. The content of the Bill has at least one important implication for the nationalised industries. It is that an agreement between the Post Office and the Post Office unions whereby pensions should be adjusted annually has been overridden by the Minister. I shall return to that point later.
I am very pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in his place, because I wish to refer to a claim that the Civil Service National Whitley Council has been making for many years for the reckoning in full for pension purposes any unestablished service followed by established service. My right hon. Friend has had a

long and distinguished connection with this claim, and civil servants of all ages and in all departments have cause to be grateful for the work put in by him.
This is a long-standing claim. When this Increase Bill was announced, I asked whether the reckoning in full for pension purposes of unestablished service would be included. I am disappointed that it has not been. I recall that, at the time of the 1949 Superannuation Act, the then Conservative Opposition carried against the Labour Government of the day an Amendment enabling all Civil Service unestablished service since 1919 to reckon in full for pension purposes. At the subsequent Report stage, the Labour Government succeeded in deleting the Amendment, but they allowed a concession to enable unestablished service to count in full from the date of the Act. There have been many distinguished Conservative exponents of this point of view, and, in 1953, the Conservative Government appointed a Royal Commission on the Civil Service and included in its terms of reference:
Whether any changes are desirable within the framework of the existing superannuation scheme.
The Royal Commission reported:
It seems to us that there is no question of merit or principle outstanding. It is, in fact, now common ground that it is right that unestablished service should reckon in full: the 1946 decision certainly affords a precedent for retrospection of the kind claimed and supports the argument that if a certain treatment is right at one point in time it is also right at others. It is our view that the sole consideration is that of cost.
I do not wish to enumerate all the people who had been drawing and will draw lower pensions because of the failure of successive Governments to implement the reckoning in full of unestablished service. They include ex-Service men of the 1914–18 war who entered as temporaries after that war. They include junior postmen who volunteered for service and became known as the "rebel" volunteers. They include civilians who entered the service as temporaries either during the 1939–45 war or between 1945 and 1949. They include ex-Service men and women of the 1939–45 war who entered the permanent Civil Service either direct or after a period of temporary service. They also include many members of the Post Office Engineering Union such as factory staff who until 1948 were


graded as unestablisihed although they were permanently employed. Successive Governments have examined the problem and, on ground of cost, have decided not to behave in a moral way.
We are waiting to hear what the present Government's attitude is towards the problem. The Civil Service unions have had a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe. They have been moderate in their claims They have not asked that this principle be applied at a stroke. They have accepted that implementation would be gradual. They have been told that the cost would be £180 million, but I make it clear that this gives a false impression. That would not be the cost in one year. It is the cost calculated over many years. It is believed that it would not be until the 1980s that the major part of the cost would arise. Those of us who have represented men and women in the Civil Service who have been receiving smaller pensions than they should are anxious to hear the Government's attitude towards reckonability of unestablished service.
I have said that, before the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications intervened, the Post Office and the Post Office unions had reached an agreement whereby pensions should be reassessed annually. That is very important at the present time, given the rate of inflation. An inflationary rate of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. is bad enough if one has a high salary, but if one is living on a small pension—and many ex-servants of the Post Office are living on a very small pension indeed—such a rate hits one very hard. Given the extent of the increase in prices, it is imperative that we abandon the two-yearly rule and have an annual review instead.
The pensioners are also right to ask that their pensions should be related not just to the cost of living but to the standard of living. Many of them did the spade work on which later increases in production and productivity have been built. Looking around them, they who have worked so hard think it unreasonable that they should be receiving pensions so much below those of people retiring in later years. It is time we accepted that pensioners are entitled to increases in their standard of living comparable

with those of industrial and professional workers.
I shall say no more about that now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I see that you are looking at the clock and I know that in Committee we shall have adequate time to discuss these aspects. My final point is that the ex-civil servants and ex-Post Office servants covered by the Bill think that they should have had an April increase. They are dissatisfied at having to wait for it. They thought that they were going to have an increase in April, and an increase in April is what they want. If it is not possible for administrative reasons to pay the increase until later in the year, the Government should adopt the same principles as for increased pay in the Civil Service—six months' back dating.
I welcome the Bill. It will mean an improvement in the situation of public service pensioners. But I have qualified my welcome with certain reservations and I am disappointed not to see in the Bill any provision for the reckonability of unestablished service.

5.55 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): This has of necessity been a short debate and it may end by being even shorter than expected. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department and I are immensely grateful for the wide measure of support which the Bill has gained on both sides of the House. We particularly appreciate the welcome given by those who have campaigned for so long and so honourably for the welfare of public service pensioners. Speaking as a Treasury Minister, and perhaps straying a little beyond the normal path, I express my appreciation of the work done in the Civil Service Department to enable the Bill to be brought forward in this form. It was I who, from the Opposition Front Bench two years ago, gave the Conservative Party's pledge which is fully, and indeed more than fully, honoured in the Bill, and I am very appreciative of the efforts made to carry out that pledge so thoroughly and so early in the new Parliament.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), in welcoming the Bill, raised a number of interesting and


in many ways relevant points, based on his distinguished membership of the Fulton Committee and the great knowledge which he derived from his participation. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down all the roads he travelled, because most of the matters arising out of Fulton which he raised are at present the subject of a major review by the Civil Service Department, which includes a review of the terms of the pension schemes of which various categories of public servant are members.
The Bill is concerned with up-rating—with inflation-proofing, as it has been described. We are not here concerned with the details of the individual pension schemes. These, as we have promised, are being reviewed, and, as my hon. Friend said, are being reviewed in consultation with the appropriate staff associations. No doubt, at the appropriate moment, it will be possible to announce the results. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, many of the matters he raised, including the problems of establishment which were also referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) are not within the purview of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that I will be forgiven if I do not deal with them.
I want to deal with points of principle and detail which have been raised. But first I want to describe two features of the Bill which are of interest and which my hon. Friend was not able to touch upon in his opening speech for want of time. The first is the problem of frozen lump sums. This has been a source of considerable irritation for many years, and I think that I can describe how the Bill deals with it. This problem arises where a man retires early with a pension preserved or frozen to come into payment on his ultimate retirement date. The pension awarded will consist partly of an annual payment, and partly of a lump sum. In the past, Pensions (Increase) Acts have always applied to the annual payment part of a pension, but not to a lump sum, the frozen lump sum as it is called.
We have accepted that that is wrong, and the Bill provides for all lump sums that were frozen before 1st April, 1971, but which came into payment after that date, and for all that are frozen on and and after that date, to receive increases

to compensate for any rise in the cost of living in the interval between freezing and payment. The Bill, however, adheres firmly to the principle that a pensioner can never expect any increase on a lump sum in respect of any period after it has been paid over to him. When it is paid it becomes his responsibility to spend or invest as he thinks appropriate.
The second feature that I should like to mention is the new arrangement for cut-off dates, and what are called graded increases. One of the sources of complaint under previous Acts has been the inflexible working of the cut-off date. Under recent Acts this has been set about 21 months before the operative date of the Act, and anyone who retired in what might be described as this "close season" received no increase under that Act. He has had to wait until the next Pensions (Increase) Act before getting any increase in his pension, which could be three, four or even five years later.
We have made a great improvement on that, but, as I am sure the House will recognise, there still must be some cutoff, otherwise we get to the ridiculous position when a pensioner who retires perhaps only a matter of months, or even weeks, before the operative date of an increase becomes entitled to receive some quite derisory increase. I get the impression that this causes more irritation that pleasure, and it would be hopelessly uneconomic to administer.

Mr. Marks: A teacher who starts in September commences at a certain rate, and then gets an increase in September. At this level of pension, no increase can be regarded as derisory.

Mr. Jenkin: All I can say is that there is a sense of irritation that what has been a complex administrative matter ends up with a payment of what may be not more than a few new pence, or a shilling, a week.
We are talking about derisory increases, and it is right, in those circumstances, that there should be some sort of cut-off date. The test that we have written into the Bill is the same 4 per cent. test which applies for the purposes of increases generally. In other words, no increase will be made if it is less than 4 per cent., but the pensioner does not


lose because, if he has suffered some loss of purchasing power before the operative date of the order in one year, it is made up when he gets an increase under a subsequent order two years later.
That would be all right, were it not for the fact that about 75,000 people will retire in the course of any review period, and it will be impossible to work out the individual entitlement of each of those 75,000 pensioners for this broken period before the beginning of the subsequent review period. Therefore, what the Bill proposes is that we should divide the review period into four six-month periods, that an average level of the cost of living should be worked out for each of those periods, and that should be applicable to all those who retire within any six-month period. I recognise that that will be a little generous to some, and a little less generous to others but, overall, it is a fair and reasonably simple operation.
May I here emphasise again, because there has been widespread misunderstanding about it outside the House, the point made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The provisions in the Bill mean that all those who retired within the review period—that is to say between April, 1969, and 31st March, 1971, and are otherwise qualified—will get some increase this September. It is right that they should know that. It may be asked what is to happen to the man who retires in the later part of a review period, who may be excluded from any increase by this 4 per cent. cut-off? The answer is that he does not lose in the long run. He picks it up later, and it is added to his pension.
I now come to the main issues of principle raised during the debate by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The first is the question of parity, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings)—who has perhaps done more than almost any other hon. Member to fight the cause of the public service pensioners—and by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and by others.
Parity means that a man who retired from the Home Civil Service 20 years ago, having earned the maximum pension possible in that grade, should now have his pension raised regularly to what is the

going rate of new pension for newly retiring civil servants in the same class and grade who have comparable records of service. I put it on record, and it is well known, that both parties when in Government have always rejected parity, whatever they may have said when in Opposition, and I must reject it again.
First, we are against it on its merits. Many factors, apart from changing prices, can account for the differences in the pay of a man who retired 20 years ago, and the man who is retiring to-day from the same grade. There is no obvious reason why the man who retired 20 years ago should have his pension tied to what might be the relatively happy, or could be the relatively unhappy, pay experience of his successors in office. Some categories of staff will inevitably do better than others over the years, for reasons related to the market demand for staff, the nature of a job, and so on. Civil Service pay is based on comparability with the nearest equivalent work outside the Service, and it follows, of necessity, that the pay of different grades will not move in step with each other, but will vary from time to time, and that argument of principle seems to me to be very powerful.
Some people have advanced arguments based on the practice of other countries. All I say is that one has to take the whole spectrum of employment policies in the public service together. Many of the other countries do not have the same relationship as we have between the National Insurance pension and the public service pension. The whole—or virtually the whole—of the National Insurance pension is paid on top of the public service pension.
Third, there is the administrative problem. It may sound a simple enough proposition to level pensions up regularly to the going rate for the same record of service, but I assure the House that it would be a highly complicated operation. Most public service pensions are settled by reference to length of service and average salary earned over the last three years. For every grade with its own salary scale there would be a huge number of parity rates, depending on the length of service and the salary experience over the final three years. Moreover, many grades change or disappear altogether, and to the extent that one


cut through all these complications by producing some average parity figure, one would create new and substantial anomalies. By comparison, although the Bill is complicated, once our inflation-proofing system gets under way, the straightforward addition of a standard percentage every two years is administratively about as simple as it could be.
Finally, as a number of my hon. Friends acknowledged, parity would be very expensive. It would raise by another £25 million the already large annual cost that we are incurring if we were to restrict it only to those who now qualify for increase, and by about another £50 million if, as its champions sometimes argue, it were to apply to all pensions without regard to the present qualifying conditions for increases. I hope the House will agree that the restoration and maintenance of purchasing power as embodied in the Bill is on the generous side of fairness, and that we should not give further serious thought to parity at this time.
Another hon. Member who had to depart to participate in the proceedings on the Immigration Bill, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme raised a question why pensioners had to wait five months for payment; if April were to be the end of the review period, why could not the pensions be paid then? This has sometimes been called the five months' gap. We start from the position where we, like our predecessors, were committed to a two-year review in April this year. Since the purpose was to protect purchasing power, we had to wait until we had the latest cost-of-living figures up to 1st April, and we could not assess the increases until then. Thereafter—and I must make this perfectly clear to the House—1st September is the earliest practical date on which the actual payment can be made.
I have no doubt the House would be fascinated if I were to describe the complex administration that is necessary before increases can be paid but perhaps I can leave it by saying that I was convinced, as was my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows a good deal more about this than I do, that they could not be paid earlier. An hon. Member asked why we cannot make the payment retrospective to 1st April when

we make it in September; and he gave the example of other fields of life where this happens. It may well be that there are some settlements which can properly be made retrospective. But it is a fact that governments of both parties have avoided retrospective adjustments of public service pensions.
Of course, retrospective payment is not technically impossible. It could be done, but here again it is mainly a matter of cost; and we believe that we have produced the best scheme within the cost limits. If we were to pay this year's increase backdated from September to April we should add another £27½ million to the Bill, so that on top of what we are spending already the total cost would be about £85 million to £86 million. I believe that that is too much, and I think that the House will recognise that that is the case.
What have we done? Instead of retrospection, we have dealt with the five months' gap, as my hon. Friend described it, in a different way. For existing pensioners we have taken account of the gap in fixing the standard increase payable in September at 18 per cent. rather than 14·4 per cent. which would exactly correspond with the rise in the cost of living in a review period. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne recognised that this was not a forecast. Obviously, it is not a projection. It is not arrived at by any arithmetical calculation. It is, by and large, the margin by which we feel it will be right to compensate for the five months' gap, and which I believe is acceptable as such.
More complicated measures are necessary to deal with future pensioners. They are prescribed in some detail in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the White Paper. I doubt my ability to try to describe them to the House this afternoon because those particular paragraphs have not been my most enlivened bedside reading. But I hope the House will agree that we have taken reasonable steps to deal with this, in a sense, on a once-for-all basis.
After this we have a situation where review periods and payment periods occur every two years—from April to April for the review periods and from September to September for the payment periods—so that each pensioner will get a cost


of living increase measured over a two-year period and he will get it at two-yearly intervals, in September. I believe that this will turn out to be a very convenient and acceptable administrative arrangement for meeting this longstanding grievance of pensions failing to keep pace with the cost of living.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made the particular point that most of the margin we have built into this 18 per cent. has already been used up, as he put it; that the cost of living in fact went up by 2·1 per cent. last month and that there is not, therefore, much left of the difference between 14·4 and 18 per cent. There was, therefore, some suggestion that 18 per cent. was too low. I am prepared, as I am almost always prepared, to accept the hon. Gentleman's mathematics, but I do not accept his conclusions, and for two reasons. First, none of us can confidently say how the cost of living will move in the next two or three months. I agree that the last monthly increase was a heavy one, but those who study the way the index moves through the months of the year over the last decade will have seen that it is not uncommon to have a sharp rise in the spring followed by a relatively stable period throughout the summer. We must wait and see—and here again I am not making a forecast but saying one is not entitled to assume the rate will continue at the April rate for the rest of the summer.
The second and perhaps more important point which I have already emphasised is that this is not a forecast or projection but a margin; and any difference will automatically be taken into account when the next review is made for the period April, 1971–April, 1973, for payment in September, 1973.
Another point of substance made by a number of hon. Members, again on both sides of the House—because just as the Bill has had a bipartisan welcome, so improvements which are suggested have had bipartisan support—is the problem of annual review. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) raised this, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. It is simply a question of where one stops. One has to draw a line somewhere, and I suppose it can be said that one year as opposed to two

has a certain seasonal logic—what one might describe as cyclical tidiness. It would be significantly more expensive if we were to upgrade these pensions every year, and it would also result in a significant increase in the staff necessary to administer them.
There was some suggestion that the development of mechanisation and computers should make all this very much easier. I can assure the House that, given the complications of the enormous variety of circumstances that affect pensioners and the problems of getting increased pensions actually into their hands, this should represent a very significant addition to administration. Our belief is that two years, which is also the interval at which social security pensions are reviewed, is reasonable, and that the demand for more frequent review is based on altogether too pessimistic an assumption about the course of inflation which, I would reiterate, the Government are determined to master.
Another point made on both sides of the House was the problem of overseas pensioners. These fell into two classes and, in the course of the debate, this was not always kept entirely clear. There are those who have been called the quasi public service pensioners, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), who described them as the "forgotten men"; and there are the expatriate civil servants, those who served in the overseas Civil Service and may have transferred and in many cases did transfer to the service of newly independent Governments.
The House will remember in relation to the latter group that in 1962 the former Conservative Government accepted the obligation to top up the pensions of those overseas civil servants to the extent that the overseas Governments failed to do so; and that position has continued until last year. We made up the pensions to the level they would have reached had they been United Kingdom pensions paid in the ordinary way under the Pensions (Increase) Acts.
Then in March of last year the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) announced that the United Kingdom was prepared, if so requested by an overseas Government, to reimburse to the overseas Government that proportion of an expatriate's pension attributable to service


before independence. I can tell the House that negotiations on this are still taking place and it is envisaged that eventually the United Kingdom will assume the responsibility for the direct payment of that proportion of an expatriate's pension, including any increases attributed to that proportion, and if necessary topped up. This is all taken into account, of course, when the total aid programme to that overseas country is calculated—as is quite right—but when it takes effect legislation will be brought forward—it would not be appropriate to deal with it in this Bill; this should give much more assurance to these people about whom the hon. and learned Member for Northampton spoke so feelingly.
The more difficult question is that of the so-called quasi-public service pensioners. These are the employees of the Nigeria Coal Corporation, Achimota College, the Lagos Town Council and many others. We estimate that there are up to 5,000 or more. I must confirm that these people are excluded from the scope of the Bill. In Committee on the 1969 Bill I personally gave a pledge that we would once again review this cate gory of public service if we were returned to office.
But both parties have hitherto always maintained that the line should be drawn between those who remained in the service of the Crown and those who did not. Nevertheless my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development, who heard the first part of this debate and who also has a long standing interest in this problem, and whose Department is responsible for overseas pension matters, undertook a thorough review of the question, taking fully into account the views of the Overseas Pensioners Association and others who have made representations on this subject. But in the light of this review, the Government reluctantly came to the conclusion that our predecessors were right and that there was no justification for abandoning that clear dividing line between service under the Crown and other public sector employment overseas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) suggested that assurances had been given to these people when they transferred from the service of the Crown to public sector

service in these overseas countries. I am assured that any assurances given related to the current terms of service and had nothing whatever to do with possible increases of pension paid after they retired. The assurances did not cover that. However, I can assure the House that those quasi-Government pensioners who have served the Crown at some time during their careers continue to be entitled to pension increases in respect of that part of their pension which relates to their Crown service.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton asked Why the multiplier stopped short at 1944. The answer is that a different system is used for pre-1946 uprating than for post-1946, because to apply a cost of living factor to the former would give wildly anomalous results. Therefore, for those pre-1946 pensions a survey was done both of salaries and pensions paid in that period—of people who were in work and those who had retired—and there was a broad general impression—I acknowledge that this is a broad brush approach—that to uprate the pensions of those who retired in 1944 and earlier by 30 per cent. and in 1945 by 10 per cent. would bring them up to the 1946 starting point, from which cost of living adjustments could subsequently be made.
Where I believe the hon. and learned Member was misled was that that separate exercise has been rolled into one and comprehended in those two figures for 1944 and 1945 which appear in Schedule 1. One then applies the multiplier to bring the pensions up to the 1969 level, after which the 18 per cent. is added on.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) mentioned the problem of the F.S.S.U. I have a suspicion that we shall be hearing more about this matter in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill. Clause 12 of this Bill does not apply to the universities except to an extent which I shall mention in a moment, nor would it apply to a terminal salary scheme if the universities introduced one. The only people who are covered by the Bill are those public servants who transferred from the Civil Service or some other pensionable employment to which the Bill applies into the F.S.S.U. But we would accept, as with other autonomous corporations and bodies in


the public service that just as the nationalised industries are free so they would be free to uprate their pensions broadly in line with the Bill's proposals.

Mr. Roper: In the case of the F.S.S.U., this burden is borne by the Exchequer, whereas for the nationalised industries it is on their accounts. Can I assume that the Exchequer would be prepared to finance such an uprating of F.S.S.U. pensions?

Mr. Jenkin: The universities have always done this in the past. Whether it is improved by supplementation or by an increase in the recurrent grant must be one of the things which is taken into account. Of course, the hope that some people have that supplementation might be increased in future as a means of preserving the benefits of F.S.S.U. is one which it would be wrong to encourage, but perhaps that is more a matter for Committee.
The references which have been made to Members of Parliament were quite right. We must be about the only class of public servant who are not comprehended within the Bill. When the Members contributory pension scheme was set up. Section 15 of the relevant Act provided for periodic reviews in the light of the Government Actuary's valuation of the operation. It was only on 8th April this year that the House approved an Order increasing the pension of retired Members by 20 per cent.—the first increase since the scheme was set up in 1965.
Clause 5(2) of this Bill enables additional categories of pension to be added to the Schedule of the Bill if this seems appropriate. It would obviously be a matter for the Top Salaries Review Body to consider whether Members' pensions should be restructured and transferred to this Bill.
The Bill has had a warm welcome, but neither my hon. Friend nor I were so naive as to believe that whatever we put forward no one would be tempted to ask for more. We did not expect the pensioners' organisations to go out of business upon the publication of the Bill. Some hon. Members may have seen the recent circular on this subject. I did not anticipate the wildly optimistic Amendments which apparently the Public Service

Pensioners Council would like to see made to the Bill.
They want a 2 per cent. minimum instead of a 4 per cent.—that is to say, paid up to a much more recent period. They want annual reviews rather than two-yearly reviews. They want a once-for-all exercise to restore pensions—not to their original purchasing power but to some much higher figure based on something between the prices index and the wages index. They want to see the pensions regularly maintained at these annual reviews by reference to this hybrid index.
Although they say that they welcome the Bill, the impression given by all this is that the Government have produced the least generous of the Pensions Increase Bills instead of by far the most generous.

Mr. Jennings: I would not like my hon. Friend to give the impression that bodies like the Public Service Pensioners Council are ungrateful to the Government for the Bill. They are very grateful and have acknowledged this. I have had a lot to do with the Council and I have expressed its feelings today as well as my own. Of course, the Council ask us to put down Amendments, and we try to get away with it, but we know what the result will be.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting me right on this. In a sense "gratitude" is the wrong word. This is justice which has been long delayed. If one were to add up all the proposals for improvements, they would cost another £30 million or thereabouts. If costs continue to rise, while the retail price index continues to rise, the annual cost will be much greater than we expect. It is not only a matter of cost. We are told that parity still remains the council's long-term aim, as my hon. Friend made clear. If we accepted the suggested amendments, the pensions would be increased wildly in excess of parity. For example, a clerical officer, depending on the date of his retirement, would get between £100 and £330 a year more than the current pension paid to a clerical officer. An assistant secretary would receive more than £1,000 above parity. I cannot believe that it is seriously suggested by the Public Service Pensioners Council that increases of that order could conceivably be justified. If I may respectfully say so to my hon. Friend, they are utterly ridiculous.
I hope that perhaps more moderate counsels will prevail, and that there will be greater recognition that these suggestions imply that the Bill gives pensioners a fair deal. Indeed, it is more than fair; it is generous; generous by the standards of past Bills, generous by the standards of private industry, and certainly no less generous than the proposals put forward by the Labour Party before the election, indeed in one or two respects a little more so. Our citizens will gladly shoulder the cost of meeting this obligation to those whose lives have been given to the public service. Justice, long delayed, is now round the corner. The Bill represents a major milestone in the long and chequered history of public service pensions, and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to pensions payable in respect of government and other official or related service, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by government departments, and of any addition to the sums so payable under any other enactment, where the expenditure or addition results from provisions included in the Act with respect to any pensions other than Service pensions for the purpose—

(a) of adjusting pensions to any altered circumstances after the end of the relevant employment: or
(b) of securing that in the event of a person's re-employment after a pension has or may become payable in respect of his earlier employment, any pension payable by reason of the employment and re-employment, when taken with any increases under the Act, either exceeds or is not less than it would have been without the re-employment.
'Pension' for this purpose comprises all forms of pension benefit in respect of service in any office or employment, including lump sums, and including benefits in the nature of compensation for loss of office or diminuation of emoluments.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Orders of the Day — PURCHASE TAX (YOGHURT)

6.33 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 2) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 731), dated 4th May, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.
We go from the sublime to the "gorblimey". The effect of the Order is to introduce a minor adjustment to the purchase tax coverage to correct an anomaly which has become apparent in recent months. It is our intention to charge purchase tax on frozen yoghurt. Since 1962, Group 28 of the purchase tax Schedule has comprised "ice cream, ice lollies, water ices and similar frozen products, and prepared mixes and powders for making such products". Recently, a new product, frozen yoghurt, has come on to the market and Customs and Excise felt that it should be within the charge. In a court action in March of this year, when Customs and Excise contended that frozen yoghurt, which is usually put up in small tubs just like ice cream was chargeable because it was a "similar frozen product", we lost, and judgment was given, that it should not be so classified.
The product has subsequently been marketed on a stick. I have an example here. It is called, in small print, an "ice lolly". It appeared that we were faced with what could be a significant and widening loophole in the tax. It is confidently expected that this new product will sell beside other ice lollies, being offered as having a different flavour and a different texture. It will be sold through exactly the same retail channels, probably at much the same price, as many other frozen products which are within the range of the purchase tax.
The Act, fortunately, makes provision for dealing with exactly this situation. It is clearly unfair to the producers of existing taxed products that this new product, closely resembling the others, should be available free of tax for no other reason than that it was not invented when the relevant class was defined. Furthermore there could be a significant loss of revenue, and for that reason I have brought the Order to the House this evening.
The Order came into operation on 10th May, and simply inserts the words "frozen yoghurt" after the words "ice lollies" in the statutory heading to the group. It will bring the new product within the field of the tax. There is no intention of taxing conventional liquid yoghurt. The Order does not touch that product at all. We are concerned only with frozen yoghurt. This is a very short point. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel justified in making the Order, and I ask the House to approve it.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I am sure the House will agree with the Financial Secretary that we should eliminate anomalies, but I wonder whether he is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, or a piece of frozen yoghurt. He did not make clear the extent of the avoidance. He seemed to imply a whacking great loophole in the law, with masses of frozen yoghurt being sold all over the country and escaping purchase tax.
I made a small inquiry about the extent of this, and I find that Walls Ice Cream Co. tried this idea last year and did some tests in the South of England, but discontinued the idea. Midland Counties Dairies, a subsidiary of Unigate, make frozen yoghurt. It is actually made by another subsidiary, Cheshire Sterilised Milk Co. of Stockport, and transported to Midland Counties for the deep-freeze processing. This does not seem to be done on the scale implied by the Financial Secretary.
I am sure that none of us wish to encourage the flouting of the law, but if the loophole is small, and since the Government plan to bring in value-added tax which would remedy all the anomalies, why is it necessary to bring in the Order for this comparatively trifling matter?
It is possible that the Order might not even catch the frozen yoghurt, or might catch genuine yoghurt which is a food and exempt from tax. The Financial Secretary said that it would not catch ordinary yoghurt but only frozen yoghurt, but I understand that yoghurt is kept in the freezing compartment in most retail establishments, and I am not sure

how one would distinguish when yoghurt is frozen and when it is not frozen. On the other hand, it is easy for avoidance to occur by a customer buying ordinary yoghurt and then deep-freezing it.
The Government are perhaps going to somewhat unusual lengths for a comparatively short time on a comparatively minor matter. However, if this is what they want, and they think there is a major, momentous avoidance of our tax system, I am sure the House will wish to remedy this.

Mr. Jenkin: With the leave of the House, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not put this matter forward as a major momentous change in the system. Indeed, my first sentence indicated that it was a matter of somewhat minor importance. If it were to be held by the courts not to be within the scope of the provision as drawn but we felt that the provision ought to be included, it seems right that we should let the manufacturers know where they stand so that they can plan ahead. I have not tried the product myself, but it may have a big public appeal. If we were to take no action on this matter, it would of course mean a loss of revenue. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope that the Order will now be agreed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 2) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 731), dated 4th May, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — BUILDING SOCIETIES (SPECIAL ADVANCES)

6.42 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
That the Building Societies (Special Advances) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
This seems to be one of those days when the Financial Secretary is the bat, the ball and everything else, but that is in the nature of the job.
This Order, if approved, will increase from £10,000 to £13,000 the maximum amount which a building society can advance to an individual without the


advance having to become a "special advance" for the purposes of the Building Societies Act 1967. I shall explain briefly what this means. Traditionally, the function of building societies has been to lend money on mortgage to owner-occupiers. In the Building Societies Act, 1960, which was later consolidated, Parliament sought to limit them in the main to this kind of business. The method adopted was to create a class of advances called "special advances", and then to limit the amount of special advances which a society could make in any year. Special advances, are broadly those which fall outside the building societies' traditional rôle. They were denned in the Acts as all advances to companies and advances above a specified limit to individuals.
The limit was originally fixed by the 1960 Act at £5,000, which was then regarded as the normal maximum level advance for an owner-occupier. However, the Act recognised that the limit might need to be revised from time to time, and it included a provision to do this by Order. In 1963 the limit was raised to £7,000, and in 1967 it was put up to its present level of £10,000. The purpose of the present Order is to raise the limit by a further £3,000 to £13,000.
This increase is needed because house prices have continued to rise since 1967. Speaking generally, if £10,000 was the right level in 1967, a figure below £13,000 would probably be right today. In 1967 the House thought it right to make some allowance for further increases so that it would not be necessary to come back for a fresh Order at too frequent intervals.
The Building Societies Association has suggested that we ought to raise the figure to £15,000, but the Government have concluded that £13,000 would be the more appropriate figure. If we go too high, we could be appearing to encourage building societies to go beyond their traditional rôle as envisaged in 1960, and this could be to the disadvantage of the smaller borrower. For this reason we feel that £13,000 is the correct figure. I invite the House to approve the Order.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Again, I do not think we need to detain the House long. Clearly, there

is need for some increase because of the inflation which has occurred since 1967. I note what was said by the Financial Secretary about the fact that £13,000 is slightly more than the total inflation on a £10,000 house since 1967. It would be interesting to know how much below the £13,000 is the true figure of inflation since 1967. It would also be interesting to know how long he expects the present trend envisaging a figure of £13,000 to continue. However, I do not expect a precise answer tonight. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would consider the matter. It would be interesting to know where the £13,000 stands in the scale of house purchase; in other words, what percentage of total house sales it would represent. I agree that it is vital that the majority of building society funds should be available for the lower-priced houses and for the smaller owner-occupier.
I am always interested, as I am sure are my constituents in the North-West, to read in the newspapers about the average price of houses for sale being in the region of £5,000 to £6,000. In the North-West the average selling price of a house is more like £4.000. Although there is no problem at the moment since building societies have plenty of funds, I can foresee possible difficulties, perhaps in the not too distant future, if the recent Bank of England proposals are implemented and there is growing competition for funds, with the possibility of building societies finding themselves in a slightly less happy position than is the case today. In those circumstances, it may well be necessary to look at the matter again. It would be bad if the building societies were to lend too high a proportion of their funds for the more expensive houses at around the £13,000 mark, leaving insufficient funds available for those at the lower end of the house purchase scale.
I ask the Financial Secretary to bear in mind that there may well be a need to restrict building society lending, both under the new special advances rate and at the higher level, if the competition which may now take place in banking leads to a shortage of funds in the hands of the building societies. A close watch also should be kept on the percentage of funds lent by building societies in special advances. According to one noble Lord


when this matter was debated in another place, in 1968 just over 2 per cent. of building society funds were in that category. To raise the limit now might mean a higher proportion of special advances and this may apply to a greater proportion of the funds in the hands of the smaller building societies. This may not have quite such a marked effect on the large building societies, but it could certainly have an effect on the smaller ones. Therefore, it may be necessary at some time to consider a differential between the smaller and the large building societies.
I have no objection to the raising of the limit since it is necessary because of inflation, but I hope that the Government will keep this matter under close review. If in future there is a shortage of building society funds, I hope that the Government will be sure to come back to the House quickly to ensure that there is no shortage of funds for the people at the lower end of the scale whom we wish to see helped.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If I may be allowed to reply to the hon. Member, I am reluctant to become involved in a detailed discussion about the level of house prices. There are a number of indices which vary widely in their application to different parts of the country. What may seem appropriate in Heywood and Royton would seem to be a prize beyond the wildest dreams in my constituency, where houses change hands at what a few years ago would have been regarded as ridiculously high prices. I am advised that the right level to be set would be somewhere below £13,000. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement that this is a reasonable figure.
The lending policy of the building societies must be for them. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to keep a watch on the availability of funds for the traditional type of lending for the small buyer.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Bank of England paper, "Competition and Credit Control", and suggested that it might have some effect on limiting the flow of funds to the building societies. I draw his attention, although I feel sure

that he is aware of it, to what was said in that paper:
The impact of such competition on. building societies would need careful consideration and the Bank of England would wish to discuss this matter with the banks. It might be that a need would be recognised, for example, to observe some limits on the terms offered for savings deposits.
I hope that that will indicate that the authorities are aware of and will bear in mind the point which he made.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the latest figures on the amount of special advances. Most of the major building societies have a natural reluctance to make special advances and recognise the duty imposed upon them by Parliament in the 1962 Act to engage primarily in their traditional lending. We shall certainly keep this point under review. If a change is necessary we shall no doubt make proposals to the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the Order, and I hope that it may be approved.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: This brief contribution is, first, to approve the Order and, secondly, to question whether the figure of £13,000 is adequate in 1971.
I speak with some professional experience as a mortgage broker. I should point out to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) that my experience as a mortgage broker is not only in the South-East but in his part of the country as well.
I accept that the average price of houses both in his part of the country and in London is considerably below £13,000, but I hope that he will accept that there are many applications for mortgages well in advance of that figure. While £13,000 is, on balance, a reasonably adequate figure at the moment, I question whether this continuing approach is necessary.
The requirement for this type of Order to be placed before the House springs from the Building Societies Act, 1961. It was perfectly proper, in the aftermath of some difficulties attending one building society in particular, that the public should be reassured. However, I quesion whether the usefulness of this practice has not started to outlive itself, to some extent, and that this should be the last


such Order to be placed before the House and the practice abolished. In many ways, by having to approve such Orders in Parliament, we are interfering with the commercial judgment of building societies. We shall constantly have to come back and present Orders for ever rising figures unless we are supreme optimists and feel that inflation of house prices will suddenly stop.
I felt that I should make this brief intervention because only the building societies have this restriction placed on their commercial judgment. I accept that this may be proper, because they are traditionally the lenders to low-price house purchasers. If an application is made to a building society at the moment for an advance of £13,000, special approval is required. But a man has only to go to an insurance company and no particular requirement or approval has to be obtained.

Mr. Barnett: It is not only the fact that they are lending to house purchasers, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree; it is also the fact that they are borrowing from small borrowers who have to be protected, as we have seen in the past.

Mr. McCrindle: I accept that that was largely what led to the requirements being introduced. But I suppose that small shareholders in insurance companies could be brought into the same category.
My point is that, even accepting what the hon. Gentleman said, we are interfering with the commercial judgment of the building societies, and only the building societies. If, as I think the hon. Gentleman predicted, we are going to move into a period where possibly house purchase lending will be forthcoming from finance houses, and even the banks., I wonder where the interference with commercial judgment will stop.
I felt that I should make this intervention because, while I approve of the uplifting of the limit to £13,000, I wondered whether the Government would be well advised to consider the correctness of changing the necessity to continue presenting such Orders to Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Building Societies (Special Advances) Order 1971, a draft of which was

laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
Sitting suspended at 6.56 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I support the Second Reading of the Bill. As the House will be aware, this is the second Private Bill which the G.L.C. presents to the House in the course of a year. The first was the General Powers Bill, which was debated two months ago. The powers which the G.L.C. was taking then were relatively minor. This Bill is entirely different. It is important for the G'L.C. because, without it it would not be able to fulfil a large part of its functions.
The Bill gives the G.L.C. two particular powers. First, it confers upon it the power to spend money on capital account in 1971 and 1972. Second, it empowers it to lend money, for mortgages or housing associations. The House is not being asked to provide this money; the G.L.C. provides it from rates revenue or borrowings from the Public Works Loan Board and borrowings on the London Stock Exchange. But it has always been considered that the capital expenditure of London is so important that it should receive the particular sanction of this House rather than just go through the normal procedure of local authority loan sanctions from the Ministry.
The amount of money involved is very substantial.. The total funds covered by the Bill amount to £217 million, £115 million of which is for capital expenditure in the current year, £85 million being for loans that the Council will make to housing associations and for mortgages, and £17 million being held in reserve for contingency.
It is interesting to reflect how much this sum has increased over the past five years. When the Labour Party last controlled the G.L.C. in 1966–67 the equivalent figure was £112 million, so in the course of the past five years the


capital expenditure programme within the Greater London area has more than doubled. This demonstrates, as I think is accepted on both sides of the House, however concerned the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government are about restraining the rise in public expenditure, how important it is to spend sums of this sort in the centre of our cities to maintain and improve the basic public services.
I should like to deal with the four major items of expenditure, because I do not think that the House will expect me to go into elaborate detail on every last pound of the £217 million. The four major items this year are flood defences, amenities, London Transport and housing. There is also an item of £17 million for the Inner London Education Authority for its capital programme for this year. I do not intend to comment on that, because I.L.E.A. has a unique position with the G.L.C.; it can submit its requirements to the G.L.C, which simply has to meet them.
I deal first with flood defences. The G.L.C. has decided, because of the danger at any time of a tidal surge up the Thames, to undertake two major programmes, one involving the flood barrier and the other the interim measures before it is built. Those interim measures will involve raising the walls in the low-lying areas along the Thames by some 18 inches. This work has already started. The total cost will be £5½ million, and £3 million will be covered in this financial year. The G.L.C. is concerned because of the disturbing fact that the whole of the south-eastern part of England is slowly sinking, at the rate of about a foot per century. That is sufficient to cause concern to the riparian authorities, of which the G.L.C. is the major, that more flood defences should be available.
The longer-term solution is the barrier, which will be built at Silvertown near Woolwich. Its total cost will be £75 million. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Government for making such a generous grant towards the cost of 65 per cent.—about £50 million—to the building of the barrier. The G.L.C. is very grateful for that contribution. The work is only in its early stages in this financial year, consisting

mainly of the acquisition of land and items like that. The G.L.C. has decided on a rising sector type of barrier, which can be most simply explained by saying that in normal conditions the gates that will hold back the surge will be under the waters of the Thames, but if there is a threat of a surge from the mouth of the river they will swing up like saucers, rather like a radar scanner, to hold back the surge.
I understand that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) has decided to oppose the two G.L.C. Bills tonight, largely to debate the flood barrier, and, particularly the fact that the decision to go for the rising sector gate was made before the publication of technical details—I stress "before publication" and not, of course, before the consideration of technical details. I was rather surprised to know that that was his objection, because there have been ample opportunities, both in the committees of the G.L.C. and in the Council Chamber, for those who favour the drop gate system, which is more like an arch with gates coming down, to put their point of view. On 19th March this year, the Public Services Committee agreed to go for the rising sector type of barrier. That decision was communicated to the Chairman of the Environmental Planning Committee, of which I believe the hon. Gentleman is a co-opted member. As is the usual procedure, the views of the opposition leader on that Committee were sought, and no objections were made. When the Council was asked to approve the scheme on 18th May, the Chairman of the Public Services Committee specifically asked for questions and comments so that there could be a debate in the Chamber, but there were none from opposition members. Therefore, I do not think that the G.L.C. can be faulted on the question of providing ample opportunity for those members and the public to comment.
I am glad to report that next month the G.L.C. will put in the Library of the House the second Report of Studies, a substantial document, just as it did the first Report of Studies.
I turn to the second item of expenditure—amenity expenditure.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves


the important question of Thames flooding, could he help us with a point of information on item 14,
River Thames flood prevention works",
which I take not to be the barrier but the interim scheme. It says that the Government is to put up 65 per cent. of certain expenditure. It is the word "certain" that I am puzzled about. What does it mean? Can we have the assurance that none of the cost of the interim flood protection will fall on riparian owners?

Mr. Baker: The 65 per cent. is 65 per cent. of the barrier scheme in its entirety, which amounts to about £76 million altogether, of which roughly £40 million is not for the barrier and £36 million is. The £40 million is for various land works on the bank associated with the barrier. The amount that will be spent on the barrier this year under the Bill is about £3 million, which is mainly for the acquisition of land.

Mr. Mayhew: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am honestly seeking information. I do not think that item 14 refers to the barrier. I think that it is the interim flood prevention measures. That is what worries me.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman, I think, is referring to item 14 of the Financial Memorandum on page ii. I am fairly certain—as certain as anyone can be—that the 65 per cent. refers to the barrier scheme and not the interim flood measures. The interim flood measures scheme will cost £5½ million and the G.L.C. is meeting all of that.
I turn now to the second group, amenity expenditure. The G.L.C. still has responsibility for many parks in London that are not being transferred, and there are many items in the Bill for such things as the Alexandra Palace grounds, children's playgrounds, a club for pre-school children, and extension of the children's zoo at Crystal Palace. One item that I am especially glad to see, as I once fought a seat in East London, is the provision for substantial areas of open space. The G.L.C. is making a contribution towards the National Theatre, which is getting under way at last. The G.L.C. gave the site and is paying 50 per cent. of the building cost. There are

substantial sums for sewerage and drainage—£5 million and £7 million respectively.
On the amenities for its staff, the G.L.C. is spending a considerable amount on capital account, including its office accommodation. The office block at the southern end of Westminster Bridge is a G.L.C. block and when that is completed, when the in-filling at County Hall is finished and when the new telephone exchange is operating, the G.L.C. will be able to dispose of a large number of its outlying small offices and leases. Estimates have been made of the total saving benefit as a result, and when it is capitalised this will reach some £4 million. This is a very good example of good cost saving in the public sector.
The third major item is that of London Transport. The G.L.C. does not, in fact, have to provide any of the capital expenditure of London Transport if it does not want to, but since it assumed overall responsibility for London Transport, it decided in its first year to provide £2 million as a grant. I am glad to say that this year that figure has been increased to £8 million. I am sure that that is welcomed on both sides of the House. We all agree that if more money is not spent upon the basic public transportation system in London—the tubes and bus system basically—life will become less tolerable for the great mass of people who live in our capital.
Another item this year is the Heathrow extension, which has started. This will be an extension of the Piccadilly line out to the airport and will cost some £15 million, of which the G.L.C. will contribute a quarter. Then there is the £1 million for the extension of the Victoria Line beyond Pimlico to Brixton.
There will be another £1½ million for new underground trains and another £1 million for new buses. But the biggest item of all is the projected Fleet Line, which will start from my constituency—just—go down through central London, along the line of Fleet Street, down through the docks, under the river and end up at Lewisham. In this decade this will be the largest single item of major public transport improvement in London. It has been on the drawing boards for a very considerable time. I press the Government about whether a


statement could be made this evening as to the grant which the Government have been asked by the G.L.C. to make towards the cost of this line. The total cost will be some £90 million. I hope that a decision will be forthcoming soon, because this line, apart from improving the overall flow of traffic in London, has a very important task of revitalising those dead dock areas of Lower Stepney and Poplar, and the dock areas just south of the river, where transportation to and fro is not very good.
There is also continuing expenditure upon highways. The Labour Party in London have suffered a complete volte face of their attitude to road development in London. When they controlled the G.L.C. in 1965, with a tremendous fanfare of trumpets they introduced the Ringway 1 and Ringway 2 schemes. This was the dynamism and forward-looking plan which they presented. Having given it birth, they subjected it to abandonment and, this year, infanticide, since they have completely reversed their policy and are now totally opposed to Ringway 1 and Ringway 2.
I have a Press release from the Labour Party, Herbert Morrison House, Walworth Road, London S.E.17, during the recent elections. There are impeccable credentials on the notepaper. The chairman is that celebrated Housing Minister who is now the Opposition Chief Whip. He summed up six years of Labour housing policy by saying that the housing policy of the last six years should be stood on its head. That is what he is doing with the Labour policy on transport in London, because they have abandoned their support of motorways in London and in this Press release they have laid down their policy, which is a very obscure one. They state that increases should be paid for out of rates—which is being done; that these could be paid out of central Government grants—which I hope very much will be done; and they propose a
… new tax on traffic generators".
I do not know what the Labour Party have in mind here. It is unfortunate that there is no Front Bench Opposition spokesman available for the debate. I should like to know what this new tax on traffic generators would mean. Who will pay it? I am surprised that we did

not hear more about it in the Labour Party's campaign during the local elections.
The last major item of capital expenditure in the Bill is that for housing. As all of us who represent London constituencies know, this is undoubtedly the greatest problem facing London. I shall certainly not be satisfied while there are so many Londoners living in substandard homes. But regrettably, all the estimates made for the next decade—however we do the sums—predict a deficiency. There will not be enough homes built in London during the next ten years. Everyone will agree that, deplorable as the problem is, the G.L.C. has tried to tackle it on as many grounds as possible. It is hoped that its own building programme this year, covered by sums in the Bill, will amount to about 6,000 completions, and this will be the highest figure, if it is reached, since the G.L.C. came into being.
The G.L.C. is also increasing the turnover in the number of lettings per year. The lettings in the current year show an increase to 16,000, very nearly one-third more than when the Conservatives came to power at County Hall. In the next three years lettings will increase to about 19,000 a year. That will be nearly a 100 per cent. increase over the number of lettings available each year during the period when the Labour Party had control.
An important item in the housing programme is Thamesmead. There is provision in the Bill for some £8 million for continuation of building houses at Thamesmead. I draw the attention of the House to the important job which the G.L.C. does in rehousing Londoners outside London. In 1970 some 7,000 families were moved out by the G.L.C. to expanding and new towns, and many of them were people who had serious housing needs. The G.L.C. is to be congratulated for continuing this excellent scheme, and I wish that we could give it more publicity.
The G.L.C. also has a seaside scheme under which its elderly tenants retire to seaside bungalows so that the G.L.C. can release in London larger units of accommodation for families. The G.L.C. is pushing ahead on that scheme as well. It is also giving considerable support to


housing associations, and there is provision in the Bill for lending £15 million this year to housing associations. This is part of a three-year programme amounting to some £75 million. We hope and expect that by the end of this programme some 16,000 houses will have been provided by housing associations, and the G.L.C. has nomination rights to those associations.
If the Opposition has a policy towards housing associations in those councils where they now have control, I should like to know what it is. I understand that councils which went Socialist ten days ago are not prepared to provide land for housing associations. That is very regrettable and retrogressive.
The G.L.C. has a substantial programme of lending money for mortgages in the year ahead. It hopes to provide just over £50 million in mortgages for people living in London. I would point out the tremendous increase that there has been since 1968, when the Labour Government had to stop providing money for this purpose. In that year the G.L.C. loaned only £3 million for mortgages. I ask the House to reflect upon what that means. It means that in 1968 many people had their dream of buying their own home postponed if not abandoned. Now there has been this great increase with the Tory-controlled G.L.C, and it must be borne in mind that the G.L.C. is basically a borrower of last resort. It now provides 250 loans a week, concentrating particularly upon older and smaller houses.
Let me say a word now about how the money is to be found. This is a substantial capital programme. There are few cities in the world which can match it and it is substantially larger than the capital expenditure of many countries. It is basically provided from borrowings which have to be financed from rate revenue at the end of the year. This Bill provides for the first time a sum of £10 million to be placed into capital reserves from rate revenue. The Labour Opposition on the G.L.C. opposed that, but I do not know why because it must be sensible to build up reserves rather than deplete them.
This raises the whole problem of financing London. The G.L.C. looks forward to the Green Paper which the

Government are to publish soon on rating reform, because we cannot escape from this unhappy combination of facts—last year the rateable value of the G.L.C. increased by only 1¼ per cent., whereas the costs of running the G.L.C. increased by 10 per cent. We have to find a new and more equitable source of revenue than our present rating system for the needs of London. One thing that is evident from the annual money Bills is that unless sums of this sort continue to be spent in London then the services which Londoners enjoy and which make London a much more attractive city than almost any other city will slowly deteriorate. I am glad that the Tory-controlled G.L.C. is playing its part in maintaining these services.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to follow the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) for the second time. I should like to take up at once a point that he made about the available information on the Thames Barrier, for that is what I want to speak about this evening. He said that the Public Services Committee of the G.L.C. had the study before it and that it had been debated in the G.L.C. Here I make a personal point because as a co-opted member of one of the G.L.C. committees I can say that none of the documents was, quite properly, available to me. The documents have not been made available to the general public or interested bodies, other than those taking part in the study. I hope to show in detail that this is a fact, and one of the facts to which I take some objection. I also speak as a vice-chairman of the River Thames Society, which is the amenity society for the Thames, which looks at all aspects of the river, particularly planning matters.
It is important that we get this question of flooding right. The hon. Member said that when the matter came before the council last Tuesday none of the members of my party on that council raised any objection. I do not speak tonight on the basis of party politics, and that is why the subject was not raised a week ago.
We are debating a Private Bill, and the procedure on such a Bill, as I understand it, has been historically one of


checking the democratic processes and the expenditure of public monies for which this House is partly responsible. Unfortunately, in the history of Thames flooding and protection we have a history of delays, confusions and, until fairly recently, one official body blocking another.
I may have to delve into technical details and to go at some length into these matters, because there are principles at stake which are of some importance—indeed, the success of flood defences in London which in the next 50 years will be vital not only to the life of the capital but to the economy of the nation as a whole which is at issue here.
There have been a number of debates on this matter. There was an Adjournment debate initiated by the then hon. Member for Twickenham in 1968; the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who is here tonight, raised this on the Consolidated Fund debate in 1968. Last year, on 9th November, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) raised it in a second Adjournment debate.
In 1968, the G.L.C. undertook the first comprehensive investigation of this very complex matter. In October, 1969, with commendable speed, it produced a large volume called the First Report of Studies. It went at great length into many matters involved in this difficult problem. There was one issue which was not then taken to a conclusion because the studies were not complete, and that was the design of the flood barrier itself. This is the crux of the matter, because whatever we do about flood banks or flood warning procedures, it is the success of the flood barrier mechanism which will determine the success of our flood prevention measures in London.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for St. Marylebone said, we have not been able to get any public information from the G.L.C. of the conclusions arrived at after the first Report of Studies, published in October, 1969. I pay a tribute to the courtesy which I have received from all G.L.C. officials, from the chairman of the Public Service Committee and all those who have been helping in this matter. The principle which I wish to establish is that matters of this sort should be made

public, at a time when public comment can make a difference. It is no use publications coming out after the effective decisions have been made, when they cannot be changed or modified. If that happens, public confidence in the democratic procedures is loosened, justice is not seen to be done and right decisions are not seen to be taken at the correct time.
This is where I begin to delve into technicalities. The design of a flood barrier in the Thames incorporates many important factors. First, it must be reliable. That is a sine qua non, and that is the first and most important factor. Secondly, the effect on navigation, both during construction and when it is completed—and at the time of any threatened flood surge—must be considered. There are a number of inter-related factors, because if the barrier is to be entirely successful, it must be closed at some time before the surge is due; and if we are to avoid reflected waves downstream, with the threatening of land downstream of the barrier—particularly areas in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford—it should be closed as soon as possible with a detrimental effect on navigation. Then there is the timing of construction of the barrier in the river. The sooner it is constructed, the sooner we shall be secure. There is also the cost and, finally, the amenity considerations. These may include considerations of half-tide working, which would make the upper river very much more attractive for amenity purposes.
The history of the controversy over the barrier design is a long one. In 1960 a report of the technical possibilities of the Thames flood barrier, Cmd. 965, started the ball rolling. It discounted a rising type barrier, which has been adopted, and went for two other designs, which the G.L.C. has dropped. In 1969 the G.L.C. received a number of technical reports from its consultants, and at that stage they came to some quite clear conclusions. Paragraph 7.4 of (the G.L.C. "First Report of Studies" stated:
It is imperative that the barrier should be reliable in operation…. In this context the objective of reliability must be obtained by careful design, model testing, prototype testing of parts and provision for proper maintenance. The joint consultants have expressed the opinion that the drop gate type of structure allows provision of a high degree of


reliability where this cannot be guaranteed with any other type".
That was the view of the G.L.C. in September, 1969. Their consultants commented on another barrier, known as the rising drum type, and, at that stage, they said that in their view it was not as reliable; they said in their Fourth Report:
the search for reliability has confirmed that where a span of 500 ft. or less is envisaged, a drop gate provides the most satisfactory solution".
Their comment on the rising drum barrier was:
We … are unable to put forward any proposal for such a barrier which entirely eliminates all disadvantages and offers a reliability of the same order as barriers of some other types".
In other words, although they said that a rising type of barrier was feasible at that stage, they could not say, and they did not say, that it was of greater reliability; and reliability is, of course, the most important factor.
The only type of rising barrier they could suggest was a remarkable structure which would have involved excavating the river bed to a depth of 90 feet and producing chambers 90 feet deep, each having to be dry. Out of them would rise drum barriers, above the surface, when a surge threatened. Not unnaturally, they were not all that enthusiastic about that type of barrier, though in a letter the G.L.C. urged them to produce details for a barrier of that sort to overcome the technical difficulties inherent in the rising barrier design.
There was then a blackout of information. It may have been intended; whether or not it was, there was certainly a complete blackout. After the reports in October, 1969, there were no further publications and all we had on which to rely were Press statements from the Department of the Environment and the G.L.C, interspersed with Questions which some of my hon. Friends and I put to the Minister in Parliament. Most of them were tabled in the form of Written Questions.
I disagree strongly with the hon. Member for St. Marylebone when he says that there has been opportunity for the various designs to be discussed. There has not. Moreover, there have been a number of apparent anomalies in what has been

published. It is important that these anomalies are known because, unless they are, we cannot clear them up—and in the matter of flood prevention it is vital that they are cleared up.
On 22nd December last the Secretary of State for the Environment announced in a Press release that there had been a recommendation from the G.L.C., which he had accepted, of a design for a rising sector barrier. That was not a rising drum barrier. It seemed that there might have been another design, of which there was no published record, superseding the last design which the consultants had decided to reject. In any event, the announcement stated that it was the recommendation of the G.L.C. However, the hon. Member for St. Marylebone mentioned that it was not until a date in March that the Public Services Committee had decided to adopt this particular design.
We therefore have a situation in which the Secretary of State makes a Press announcement on 22nd December, and we hear in March, 1971, of a committee of the G.L.C. having taken a decision. More remarkable still, the Council itself met last week, and it is clear that the council had not been invited to take a decision until 18th May. A number of recommendations must have been going from one department to another, but it is clear from the announcement made by the Secretary of State that a recommendation was not finally passed to the council until several months later.
We come to the question of reliability. In their last published report the consultants said that any rising type of design was less reliable than a drop gate barrier—though there may be another design of which we have not heard. The G.L.C. stressed in its Press release of 31st March that the sector gate type of design was most reliable. Indeed, in a letter sent to me by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, dated 27th April, I was told that nowhere else in the world had this type of sector barrier been installed—except in Holland, where it did not cover a navigable waterway. I assume, therefore, that this barrier is unique and novel. How unique and novel it is we do not know because we have not seen the design. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) may applaud the design—indeed, I may


applaud it—if we are given an opportunity to see the plans.

Mr. Mayhew: I am following my hon. Friend's comments with the greatest interest and agreement. Does he agree that the barrier should not be in my constituency at all? It should be at Crayfordness. The one reason that was constantly given for not having the barrier at Crayfordness was that that site would require a rising sector or rising drum type of barrier, and that was technically impossible. This very much reinforces my hon. Friend's desire to hear from the G.L.C and the Government what type of rising sector gate they are proposing for my constituency.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point because it raises yet another anomaly, one which I confess I had not until this moment seen. It was clear in September, 1969, that the G.L.C. was pressing the consultants to advise whether a rising type of barrier was mechanically reliable for the purpose of being able to place it at Crayfordness, where the drop gate type of barrier would have been difficult, if not impossible, to construct. To complicate matters further, it appears that a site was chosen in Woolwich Reach at Silvertown and that now they have designed a barrier for that site which was intended for a lower site, which has now been abandoned.
I come to the question of cost. On 22nd December the Secretary of State stated in his Press statement, which was the first intimation we had had of this matter, that this rising sector barrier would cost £23 million. In its Press statement of 31st March of this year the G.L.C. said that it would cost £36 million—another £13 million. On the G.L.C. agenda for last week's meeting no cost was quoted, which seems rather remarkable.
The cost of the drop gate barrier, which was the alternative design and which has a span of 450 ft.—the rising sector gate had a number of spans of 200 ft. only—was given by the Secretary of State as £35 million. The G.L.C, on the other hand, said indirectly that it would cost £39 million. The consultants, in what was called "Design WR 9"—I take that to mean Woolwich Reach 9—quoted £22 million. There are, therefore,

considerable differences in the published estimates of building such a barrier.
I will not weary the House by giving more figures, but I must mention the anomalies that exist about the cost of the lock that will not be provided if the G.L.C.'s recommendation and the Minister's decision is accepted. In its agenda, the G.L.C. says that a lock will cost £8 million more. However, the consultants' studies show two schemes, WR.9 and WR.10. The difference between the two schemes, which are shown in fair detail, is only £2 million. In other words, compared with the consultants' report of two years ago, according to the G.L.C. the provision of a lock involves four times the amount. We are in a period of inflation. It may be that one lock is bigger than the other. It may be that one lock has a different style gate The provision of a lock must be looked at specially in relation to the needs of navigation.
A great deal has been made about the time that it would take to construct one type of gate or another. It has been claimed that the rising type of gate will take less time. The consultants reckoned that a drop gate barrier would take three years to build and possibly two years to design. In his Press release, the Secretary of State said six years. The Secretary of State says that a rising sector gate will take five years. In a Written Reply to me on 28th April, the Minister for Local Government and Development said that it would take six years. So we have a difference of a few years. However, in the end, perhaps the difference in building times for these two types of barrier is not as much as has been suggested.
I come next to the important point about navigation. Although we know that the Port of London is moving downstream, London is still a very important port. Although the upper part of the river is not as busy as it was, it is still London's greatest highway. As the G.L.C. has recommended this scheme, it is without a lock. Whichever design is chosen, if the barrier is across the river, there is no way round it. It is true that the barrier will be closed only when a surge threatens. However, all the technical papers tell us that in many cases it is impossible to tell how high a tide will be and that, in any case, the barrier is best closed to avoid flooding downstream


when the tide is low or at half-time. In other words, the barrier will be closed before the peak of the surge reaches the Woolwich area.
Moreover, as time goes on the land sinks. The report says that in 50 years the barrier may have to be closed on 20 or more occasions each year. Perhaps by then a lock will have been built. But the psychological effect of an iron curtain across the river upon ship owners and others trying to decide whether to use this part of London river, or whether the river is to maintain its pre-eminent position as a highway, will be considerable. If a lock were put in at a cost at the moment of £2 million or £3 million, even when the barrier was closed for practice, repair, or whatever it might be, there would always be a way round. In no report can we read why this has not been done. This is the major highway in London, yet here we are planning to cut it off for an unknown period of time, and that will be that.
Another aspect of navigation concerns the spans. I have said that the drop gate barrier was designed with a 450-feet span but that, as the Minister has said and as the G.L.C. has confirmed, the rising sector gate involves 200-feet spans. I remind hon. Members that 200 feet is the span of Tower Bridge. That is not very great in Woolwich Reach.
In the Evening News of 7th January this year we have the headline:
 'Crash danger' in Thames barrier.
We read:
… Trinity House, backed by the P.L.A. and the river pilots, has written to Mr. Walker urging him to consider a 'drop gate' type barrier with a 450 feet opening … Mr. Daniel McMillan, chairman of the River Pilots' Committee, said of navigating a ship through the 200 feet openings: 'It can be done in most circumstances. But in bad weather such as a northerly or southerly gale it is going to be particularly difficult to get a ship through there … We can see the danger of ships striking the barrier and getting damaged. And if a ship does hit the barrier perhaps the gates could not be closed. Then you could get the danger of a flood.'
It may be that the river pilots are being ultra careful. But the point is not necessarily damage to a ship, important though that may be. What is even more important is damage to the barrier. We are told that the G.L.C. has been advised that the organisations responsible for

navigation have said that 200 feet is all right, yet, as I have said, the people actually on the job have apparently written to the Secretary of State for the Environment objecting.
As I say, it may be that they are being ultra cautious. However, a letter to me from the Under-Secretary dated 18th January states that it has been agreed that tugs will be standing by, I presume that that means that they will be standing by 24 hours a day on every day of the year round this barrier proposed by the G.L.C. If that is so, it means not only that it will it cost more but that the danger of collision with the piers will be there all the time. If we have the danger of collision, it means that the reliability of the barrier, however inherently good it may be in itself, will again be suspect. I have mentioned the psychological effect on shippers and the fact that a permanent barrier across the river might be detrimental to the interests of river navigation and the prosperity of the Port of London.
So we have all these anomalies, and I think that it is right, before this matter is finally agreed, to have the answers to a number of questions. I do not ask for them to be answered tonight. However, I hope that note will be taken of what I say, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East will add to the points that I have raised.
My first question asks why there has been a blackout on information about the barrier. It may be a good design, but we do not know what it is. It is clear that, while the site for the barrier was in question, there were property interests, and one can understand why matters of this sort might be kept confidential. But is there any reason why matters have been kept confidential since Christmas? Why could not we have known the technical details?
Secondly, why has there been a discrepancy in quoted costs? I have no doubt that there is a simple explanation. But when we are dealing with matters of this importance, in which we have Secretaries of State making statements, and a great county authority like the G.L.C. also making statements, we do not expect a £12 million difference between the quoted figures.
Thirdly, who recommended the new design, when was it recommended, and when was it accepted? We have seen that there are anomalies in statements about who recommended what to whom. In this sort of public matter, the House of Commons cannot rest until it knows the answer to that.
Fourthly, how is it that this rising sector gate overcomes all the inherent disadvantages of design, which were stressed by consultants, two very eminent firms of consulting engineers, as late as 1969? They may have come up with some alternative. Has it been published in the technical Press? Have other people had an opportunity to comment on it? We know that it has not been built elsewhere in the world. Is it too late to modify it or make it better than the G.L.C. thinks that it is?
My fifth question is about navigation. The G.L.C. said in its letter to the consultants in September, 1969, that it would like a rising barrier as long as it was acceptable to navigation interests. Certainly one navigation interest—the pilots and Trinity House—apparently is not satisfied. Who has said that 200-foot spans are all right? If the pilots say "No," who is right? Incidentally, if tugs are to be standing by, who is to pay for them? Will they be a burden on the ratepayers of London, or the Government?
Finally, why is there no provision for a lock? A lock would not only give added advantage to navigation. It would mean that the barrier could be closed earlier, so avoiding the risks to the (downstream areas, which are risks which greatly concern the Metropolitan authorities to the east of London. As I have pointed out, we have had a history of difficulty and controversy on this matter. That was finished in 1969 with a magnificent report from the G.L.C. But since then we seem to have plunged back into anomalies and difficulties, and the answers must be given. There is no need for secrecy. I have no knowledge, and cannot think of any reason, why the information has not been available and why it cannot be made immediately available. I hope that, before the Bill reaches its Third Reading, these matters will be cleared up. If they are not, I and many others, possibly on

both sides of the House, will have to reconsider their decision not to oppose the Bill. I hope that these matters will be cleared up because they are important not only for London but, possibly, for the economy of the country.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I begin by paying tribute to the way in which the Greater London Council has been conducting its affairs since it came into office last year. We are all aware that, by its excellent management and work study procedures, it has shown considerable savings. Indeed, I understand it is saving up to £3 million a year simply by work study procedures which are resulting in staff savings. Looking through the various sums of money proposed for expenditure this year, one of the figures which attracted my notice was the amount to be spent on road improvements. Roads in London are always a pertinent subject to any hon. Member representing a London constituency and at the back of our minds must surely be the whole concept of the ringways, which were once the motorway box programme. As we know, by the time the programme is completed—I believe that the projected date at the moment is 1998—it is likely to cost £1,800 million a vast sum of money. At the same time, one must consider the enormous growth in the number of motor vehicles in the country over the past decade. I believe that the present figure for the United Kingdom is 15 million. By that token, what sort of numbers shall we be dealing with in the next 20 to 30 years? How can we be satisfied that London's roads in the foreseeable future, will be able to carry the volume of traffic then existing when they find difficulty in carrying today's traffic?
My plea to the G.L.C. is that it will consider whether the re-phasing of the programme that it was forced to bring in last year, mainly through the central Government's economic policies, could not now be re-phased yet again in order to bring forward the ringway programme. I believe that if we do not have the ring-way programme sooner rather than later there is a fair chance of London Transport and traffic grinding to a halt.
I totally agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) who


said that the policy of the Labour Party simply did not make sense on how to cope with the problems of London traffic. In 1965, the Labour Party in London announced with glee the ringway programme, but now one does not know what its policy is. It talks vaguely about orbital routes but has not spelt out what it has in mind. I would like to hear from it exactly what it wants to do.
Meanwhile, while we wait for the 1990s—for even a re-phasing of the ringway programme will not bring these roads before then—how are we to meet the needs of London traffic? In particular, how are we to meet the requirements of London Transport and its bus services? One cannot help wondering why we seem so unwilling to use the Thames to carry people and freight. I do not know whether it is an eight-lane highway, but it must be something like that. It runs through the middle of a city of 10 million people, yet we have little use for it, except for pleasure steamers and for ships coming in to dock. I am therefore glad to see that the G.L.C. has decided to initiate a study into whether the river could take more passengers than hitherto, and I suggest that the study be extended to cover freight services.
We talk of studies, but these take a great deal of time. I ask—and this is pertinent to the amount that the G.L.C. has spent—how we can do something now to relieve the roads in the city centre from some of the traffic they are carrying. We have to decide whether we think all the roads in the centre should be open to all types of traffic, or whether we should not be slightly more selective about which roads carry which traffic. I have sometimes advocated, and do so again, that heavy lorries at least be taken out of the city centre. I believe that Paris has made a start with such an experiment and I do not see any reason why an attempt should not be made by the G.L.C. to create a network of lorry routes which would take heavy lorries out of the centre of London and out of residential areas. I suspect we have all sat in our cars behind heavy lorries going around Parliament Square, and one wonders why they have to come this way in order to get wherever they are going.
One residents' association in London turned to the G.L.C. in desperation to

ask whether lorries could not be routed out of their road, which is near to where I live. The association had counted an average daily flow of 1,500 heavy lorries travelling along that residential street. Quite apart from the loss of amenity from noise and exhaust smoke, there is the considerable damage done by vibration. I understand that the borough of Islington has also approached the G.L.C. about removing heavy lorry traffic from the borough's residential areas. My constituents in Walthamstow, East would wish me tonight to express their dislike of the same sort of problem which they have with lorries coming from the North Circular Road through the constituency to Lea Bridge Road without any thought for the people in these residential areas and creating the considerable problem of noise nuisance and lack of amenity.
I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man or the G.L.C. to think of some way of taking these heavy lorries away from residential areas. In the light of the millions of pounds to be spent this year on road improvements, I suggest that some at least could be spent on a road traffic survey to see the extent of the problem and decide whether there is not some cure, albeit temporary, which can be brought in to relieve the plight of those who have to suffer this inconvenience.
Lorry parking is another problem. I know that the G.L.C. has this problem close to its heart, since I am sure that it has as many complaints as I have about it from residents. The figure could grow to 5,000 very large lorries parking in London every night. Where are they to be parked if parks are not provided for them? The short answer is, "Outside your front door and mine". I make a further plea that the ringway programme should be looked at again and brought forward and, if I may bring an advocate to my side, may I quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, the Chairman of the British Road Federation, who, talking about the proposed dates for the ringway programme, said:
Twenty years is bad enough. London cannot wait for as much as thirty years.
I totally and absolutely endorse that, view.
Heavy vehicles moving through the city centre must, of necessity, slow down public transport, and when so much effort is being put into trying to speed up and improve public transport, surely keeping them out is one way in which we can help.
We have seen the advent of the one-man bus. It looks as though its use will be extended in London, and I suspect in all our major cities. The G.L.C. is providing London Transport with £951,000 to purchase about 600 buses in all. Unfortunately the one-man bus is experiencing an enormous number of breakdowns, and thereby reducing the service to the public.
I wrote to the Chairman of London Transport, recently, and he kindly made it possible for me to visit one of London Transport's garages at Victoria to see the sort of problem that London Transport is up against with this type of bus. I was shown no fewer than 29 major parts—both mechanical and electrical—of the engine that are breaking down fairly consistently. I gather that the trouble lies in the design of the engine. A bus operating in London is worked harder than a bus operating almost anywhere else in the country, and I gather that the design of the one-man buses is having difficulty in standing up to the heavy work that is being imposed on it.
These buses are manufactured by British Leyland, which also designed them. London Transport, which usually designs its own buses, is aware of the problem. The tragedy is that not only will the buses which break down have to be repaired, but that these buses will have to be modified which will mean they have to be taken out of service. This in turn will mean reducing the service to the public while the work is being done. Added to that there is the problem of strikes and go-slows in the motor industry which have meant that essential spares for these buses have not been forthcoming.
I am sure that London Transport will be grateful for the extra money to be provided by the G.L.C, but we must recognise that there is a problem here, and I should like to think that the G.L.C. will lend its powerful voice to that of

London Transport's in an effort to persuade British Leyland that this is a matter of the greatest priority and urgency, because nothing will drive people away from public transport quicker than having to wait in the rain, as some of my constituents do, for up to three-quarters of an hour on several days a week only to find, when the bus comes, it is full.

Mr. Spearing: I understand that this is the first series of bus that London Transport has not designed itself. The fact that the buses come from one firm need not necessarily reflect upon the adequacy of the engineering, but may be due to the great strain imposed by London conditions, which I think are unique, on the mechanical parts of buses. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that the fact that London Transport—for some reason with which we are not concerned today—has not been able to develop its own design of bus might have something to do with this, and that this is a lesson for both central and local Government.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reiterated the point that I made about exceptional working conditions. British Leyland has great experience of making buses—we all remember the famous contract it won from Cuba, which was one of the most exciting orders ever won for British buses—but the simple fact is that it does not have experience of making buses for London, whereas London Transport has. Perhaps London Transport will agree this is a teething problem, which must be overcome. It is a problem which affects all hon Members who have constituencies in London, and we may as well recognise that the fault is due, not to bad servicing in the depots, but to faults in the design.
I congratulate the G.L.C. on its intention to spend £250,000 on the Lea Valley Regional Park. This is one of the most imaginative concepts for creating a recreational area beside a great urban conurbation. Because it is in North-East London, and will serve my constituency, I suspect that we shall get the greatest benefit from it. I am sure that this park, with the enormous mix of recreations that it will offer, will be the envy of most of the boroughs of Greater London, and many of the largest cities in the world.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: As the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) said, this is an important Measure, and I doubt whether there is any constituency which is more importantly affected by the Bill than my own of East Woolwich.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Thamesmead. It should by now have extended into my constituency which will in due course contain the great bulk of this development. This was a splendid concept, supported by both political parties, but its execution has been extremely disappointing. The construction of Thamesmead is more than 18 months behind schedule, due to failures of administration. I ask the Minister to accept that successive Governments have held up the development of Thamesmead by their failure to reach quick and clear decisions about cost yardsticks, and that that still haunts the carrying out of this great project. I should like an explanation why there have been these continual delays in the Ministry in deciding this vital question of the cost yardsticks which has so seriously delayed the construction of this project.
Why has no proper decision yet been taken about the amount of shopping space in Thamesmead? Why has the project been crippled by a lack of imagination in the Ministry responsible? I am not blaming only this Government. I have criticised, and I do so again now, their predecessors, too.
The G.L.C.'s administration of Thamesmead has been woefully inadequate. There are two sides to the problem of labour relations. These have not been a success at Thamesmead, and part of the blame must rest with the management and with the G.L.C. I am glad to say that things are going a little better now, but I should be happier if the administration and execution of this project showed greater skill, greater sensitivity and a greater sense of urgency than we have seen so far.
Listening to hon. Members opposite one had the feeling that the ruling party in County Hall had proved itself in management and administration and had made itself popular with the ratepayers and citizens of London. How sad they must feel that there were no elections to the G.L.C. this month! What great gains

the Conservative ruling party in County Hall would have made had they tested their popularity with the electors!
There are a number of issues affecting my constituency, like the Fleet Line to which the hon. Member referred, absolutely vital and enormously valuable—and I hope that the G.L.C. puts behind the Fleet Line the urgency which that project deserves. But, above all, I come to the point so ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing)—Thames flood prevention. There are two sides to this, the barrier and the question of interim flood prevention measures.
I wish to speak in support of my hon. Friend about the barrier. It is a strange thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved) and myself for 18 months waged a strong campaign to have the barrier placed where it ought to be placed, down river at Crayfordness, with the support of our constituencies, our borough councils, and all the local authorities around. On grounds of amenity, cost and navigation, we feel that it should have been at Crayfordness.
The argument we could not get round was that put forward by successive Ministers—that if the barrier were at Crayfordness, we could not have a drop gate barrier because of the width of the river and we should have to have a rising gate or rising drum barrier; and the Government said that for technical reasons this type of rising design was not desirable and would take longer to erect. It was also said that there was no prototype and that it was too much of a risk to take. Having no alternative body of technologists and experts at our command, my hon. Friend and I felt at some disadvantage. Now we find that the site chosen is on the boundary of my constituency at Silvertown, and we have the rising gate design.
What has happened? Why this change of mind? Is it a new design or is it the design that was ruled out when it was a question of using it at Crayfordness? My constituents, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford and his constituents, and all the river boroughs are entitled to an answer. There may be a simple answer, but we are entitled to


an answer, and if we do not get one we shall make a fuss and a great deal of noise about it.

Mr. Spearing: I may be able to help my hon. Friend. While I sympathise with his difficulties, I believe that the answer, which is relatively simple, is that while a rising gate of any kind might be feasible, it is feasible only as long as the span does not exceed 200 ft.; and if one had tried to do it at Crayfordness, the span would have been too narrow. But my hon. Friend emphasises the point that I have made. If that is the answer—and I believe it to be one—it is a very simple answer and it is a great pity that the G.L.C. have not provided a comprehensive kind of announcement which would have made unnecessary the question which my hon. Friend has put so forcibly.

Mr. Mayhew: That may well be the answer. We are looking forward to finding out. But, as I recall, it was not the technical difficulty that was put to us in relation to a rising gate at Crayfordness. That was not related to the width of the river or of the span but to the mechanism of the gate, which it was said, which was new and untried. We leave it to see what is the answer.
What about the cost? I recall great disputes whether it would be more expensive at Crayfordness or at Woolwich. The plan suggests that, taking everything into consideration, there is very little in it. Have the costings changed, as may hon. Friend suggested? Let us have the answer. Let us open this information barrier which the G.L.C. and perhaps the Minister seem to have erected. We are entitled to know. There cannot be any security aspect to it.
Has the P.L.A. agreed to the new design at Silvertown? What advice and representations has the Minister received from the P.L.A. about the rising gate barrier being sited at Silvertown? These are simple questions to which we are all entitled to replies soon, especially as the taxpayer apparently is meeting 65 per cent. of the cost.
On the other hand, I wanted to deal more fully with the second aspect of Thames flooding, the interim measures, because of all the things in the Bill,

that is the most important and most urgent. We are lookinig at the welfare of Londoners. We can consider in that respect a great number of important questions such as housing, education, the Fleet Line and others. But anybody who has studied the risk of catastrophic flooding between now and the time when the barrier is finished will know that it is the money which the G.L.C. is spending on interim flood prevention which is, in terms of the welfare of London, easily the most urgent and important expenditure.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: May I correct some information which I inadvertently gave the hon. Gentleman earlier about the Government's contribution? The contribution of 65 per cent. applies to the interim measures as well as to the flood barrier scheme. I believe that earlier I said the reverse.

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I believe that Item 14, which we briefly discussed, refers to the interim flooding measures. There might be a small part on account of the barrier and one or two minor items of expenditure included in that item but, broadly speaking, in my opinion, the money asked for—more or less £5½ million, to which the hon. Member referred—is for interim flood protection.
The problem is the six-year gap, for unless effective interim measures are taken, we can work out fairly accurately the risk of catastrophe. During any one year at present the chance of the flood waters over-topping the statutory defence level by one foot is one in 30; and as we have six years to go, we have a five-to-one chance against catastrophic flooding unless effective interim measures are taken. I noticed from a very interesting study that the high tide in 1780 was 14 ft. above the ordnance datum level. In 1834 there was a high tide which was 15 ft. above; in 1881, a high tide which was 16 ft. above; in 1928, a high tide which was 17 ft. above; and in 1953 a high tide which was nearly 18 ft. above. The North Sea is rising and South-East England is sinking. It is extraordinary that we have allowed ourselves to get into the position in which a one-in-five chance exists of catastrophic flooding of London. We must get on with this interim protection.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone seemed to take pride in the alertness of the G.L.C. He said that it had discovered that the North Sea was rising and that South-East London was sinking——

Mr. Kenneth Baker: It has done more than the Socialist L.C.C. did.

Mr. Mayhew: These facts have been known for a very long time by successive Administrations and successive Ministers of different parties. But what the hon. Gentleman did not say was that the G.L.C. brooded on these facts for a very long time. I said on 16th February, 1970, to the G.L.C. and the then Minister, Lord Greenwood, that just building a barrier is no good, that the important thing is what happens between now and when the barrier is built. But, at the time, I am sure that neither the Ministry nor the G.L.C. had given a thought to the problem of interim flood protection. It was not until 15th December, ten months later, that the G.L.C. announced that it would undertake a programme of interim flood protection. This programme is designed to raise our defences by 1½ feet at a cost of £5½ million.
I need hardly say that there is a great deal of local interest in this. I attended a conference at Bexley a month or two ago, summoned by the Mayor of Bexley. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford had helped to initiate it. It was attended by many local authorities, several Members of Parliament, water board representatives and other people concerned. It passed the following resolution:
That the local authorities and other bodies represented at this meeting view with concern the fact that both Her Majesy's Government and the Greater London Council have consistently announced decisions on the proposed Thames Barrier in advance of adequate consultation with other public authorities representing areas and interests directly affected and that such limited consultation as there has been has only resulted from pressure by these authorities.
That such authorities be strongly recommended to demand that the following guarantees be incorporated in the Bill to be promoted in Parliament by the G.L.C. to authorise the construction of the Thames Barrier:—

(a) the river bank for the whole of the River Thames downstream from the Barrier will be brought up to an acceptable level of safety, in ways which will preserve and improve the amenities and facilities of the

river frontage, before the Barrier at Silver-town becomes operational;
(b) the cost of the whole project, including the raising of the defences, will be met from national or Greater London resources and not by riparian owners; and
(c) full consultation will take place at all stages of the project relating to the proposed interim works, with all local and other authorities before any works are started."
That was unanimously passed by this highly representative conference of local authorities affected.
How far has this interim flood protection got? Which areas are being dealt with first? What consultation has been undertaken with local authorities, and how does this help to increase the odds against catastrophe? We know that there is a five-to-one chance in the next six years of a very serious catastrophe. How far will those chances be improved or the chances of catastrophe be lessened when this interim project has been implemented? This can be calculated, and I should like to know the answer.
I was glad of the assurance of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone that the cost of the interim project will be borne by the G.L.C. and not by riparian owners. That is a valuable assurance which I appreciate. I should be grateful if the Minister would let us have the answers to those questions.
As the hon. Member said, this Measure is enormously important for London. I wish that I felt greater confidence in the ability of the ruling party at County Hall to administer it effectively. Fortunately, they will not be very much longer in power. We shall have a swing of the pendulum which will deservedly put a better administration in. In the meantime, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Acton in drawing the Minister's attention to the question of Thames flooding, on which we have asked him straightforward questions, to which there are answers available and to which we expect answers to be given.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Dick Leonard: I want to speak about the proposed expenditure by the G.L.C. on housing, as referred to in paragraph 11 of the Schedule. This shows that it is proposed to spend £5874 million in the next 12 months. Am I the only hon. Member who thinks that this is a miserable sum to be spent by the local


authority of a city of eight million people?
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) referred to what he called the "inevitable shortfall" in housing over the next decade, as against the known demand. What he did not tell us, however, is that it is evident that the provision which is being made is inadequate even to meet the minimum statutory obligations of the G.L.C.
My authority for this assertion is the first Report of the Standing Working Party on London Housing, published by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1967. That Report says that the G.L.C. estimated that, from 1966 to 1972, they would have to rehouse 71,800 families displaced by the council in the exercise of its statutory powers. Yet the G.L.C.'s total housing programme during the seven years involved, including the estimated completions in this year and next year is only an average of 5,000 or 6,000 a year. So the seven-year total will certainly not exceed 40,000. This means that the total G.L.C. housing effort has done no more than account for just over half the displacements and has, therefore, made no net contribution to the crucial need to rehouse families from the waiting lists in the stress areas of Inner London.
The Cullingworth Report on the proposed transfer of G.L.C. housing to the London boroughs contained the following sentence:
It is abundantly clear that any solution to the housing problems of Inner London necessitates the large scale movement of people to Outer London and beyond.
Many other people have made similar observations, and no one has ever challenged this point.
The G.L.C. has the right to build houses anywhere in the G.L.C. area and outside. It does not have to ask the permission of London Boroughs to build within their areas, but this is exactly what the Tory leadership of the G.L.C. has chosen to do. The G.L.C. has gone to the Tory boroughs of London and said, "Please may we build houses in your area?". It is not surprising that the parochially minded Tory Outer London Boroughs have mostly chosen to say, "No". The consequence is that less than a quarter of the G.L.C.'s annual

housing programme of 5,000 to 6,000 houses has been built in the Outer London Boroughs. During the last year for which figures are available, 1970, the G.L.C. built no houses at all in the following Outer London Boroughs: Bromley, Croydon, Harrow, Hillingdon, Merton, Sutton and Waltham Forest—all of them Conservative-controlled until a fortnight ago. The total number of houses built by the G.L.C. in the Outer London area in 1970 was only 1,169.
If the housing problem of the capital is to be solved, the G.L.C. must start to use the powers Parliament has given it and build in the Outer London Boroughs, whether the Outer London borough councils want it or not. If the G.L.C. refuses to do it, the Government must take action, if necessary by setting up a new housing authority with powers to build anywhere in the London region.
At the beginning of last month the G.L.C. transferred to the London Boroughs about 46,000 dwellings, about one-fifth of its total stock of houses. This clearly represents a diminution in the long-term capability of the G.L.C. to help to solve the overall housing problem of London. In the Statutory Order under which this transfer took place, the condition was laid down that the G.L.C. should retain nomination rights until 1983 for 65 per cent. of the dwellings transferred. That may seem a long time ahead, but 12 years is not long in relation to the anticipated lifetime of these houses which are being paid for over 60 years, nor, unfortunately, is it very long in relation to the projected solution of London's housing problems. There is absolutely no guarantee that the G.L.C. will have any control over the disposition of these dwellings after 1983. So, if the Outer London Boroughs involved take as parochial an attitude towards these houses as they have in their refusal to build themselves to take Inner Londoners, this will mean a permanent drying up of the possibility of rehousing Inner Londoners in the outer boroughs whenever houses become vacant because tenants move out.
When these houses were transferred there was no debate in the House, although the Opposition put down a Prayer against the Order. We were denied the possibility of debating this,


and I am not the only Member on this side of the House who feels bitter about it.
There are pros and cons about whether it is better for housing estates to be managed within the boroughs in which they stand or by County Hall, a long way away. If it were not for the crucial question of the continued right to nominate by the G.L.C., I would acknowledge that a case can be made for the management of many of these estates from the boroughs in which they stand. What is utterly unacceptable, and, indeed, ludicrous, is that some estates were split into two, part being transferred to the borough and the remainder retained within the management of the G.L.C. This happened in the Harold Hill estate in my constituency, which is the second largest housing estate in London, in which about 30,000 people live. Part of this estate was transferred to the London Borough of Havering, and the other part was retained within the control of the G.L.C. This has caused the most appalling confusion within the estate. Many of my constituents have no idea who their landlord is, and this splitting up can hardly have contributed to the efficient management of the estate as a whole. Surely, the whole estate should either have been handed over to the London borough of Havering or the G.L.C. should have kept control of the entirety.
The Bill must be given a Second Reading, but at the same time a stern message must go from the House to the Greater London Council saying that its record and proposals are inadequate to meet the major challenges in the period ahead. The electors of London have already demonstrated their verdict on the Tory stewardship of the London boroughs and the Tory G.L.C. can have no illusions about its fate in two years' time if it does not markedly improve its record.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) tried to import into the debate an unfortunate partisan approach as though he were fighting the election that was fought ten days ago. It is a pity he did not bother to say that in 1971 the G.L.C. will have about 16,500 homes available for rehousing Londoners, which

is 16 per cent. more than in 1970 and 36 per cent. more than in 1967 when the Labour Party were thrown out of office in County Hall. By 1974 the figure is expected to rise to 19,100.
The hon. Member falls into the usual error of those in the Labour Party in claiming that only local authority housing matters. I suggest that in the context of this Bill that is not so and that all agencies are needed to help to rehouse Londoners—the Greater London Council, the London boroughs, the housing associations, the housing societies and private enterprise. I hope that private enterprise will be greatly aided in the battle to offer new homes when the Government implement their promise to give rent rebates to private tenants. This will at long last stop the wicked anomaly of the well-off council tenant being subsidised by the badly-off pensioner living in private accommodation.
The hon. Member also failed to face another fact, which is that if the Labour Party had done its job when it controlled County Hall from 1934 to 1967, and indeed controlled most of the inner London boroughs as well, most of the people who are now homeless would now be housed.

Mr. Leonard: The hon. Member fails to take account of the fact that the L.C.C. did not have the same resources, as the G.L.C, to build in the whole of the present G.L.C. area. The only solution for the inner London boroughs is to build in the outer London areas, as report after report has made clear. The hon. Gentleman is refusing to face the facts of life that either the G.L.C. or the Government can build in these boroughs, whereas the old London County Council could not to the same extent.

Mr. Finsberg: My recollection, after many years in local government, was that the London County Council did have certain powers to build outside its own area. If it did not choose to do so, it was that council's own responsibility. Certainly the inner London Conservative boroughs, like Hampstead, have built outside their own areas.
I join with the hon. Member in one thing he said, and that is that the ownership of houses should be with the boroughs and not with the G.L.C, but


that the G.L.C. should have the right of nomination to carry out its programme of roads, education and the like.
I shall not take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) in his support for the motor box, which has now been more politely named the ringway. I have opposed this concept since its introduction by the Socialists and they have now done a complete volte face on this matter. I intend to continue opposing the ringways. I hope thatt hey will never come to fruition.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who was so eloquent on the subject of the Thames Barrier and the danger of flooding, forgot, I am sure quite unintentionally, except for his last few words, which were put in to fight the election battle about two years hence, to censure the L.C.C. for doing nothing about floods.
There can be no dispute that Labour had mastery over the L.C.C. from 1933 until its unlamented demise in 1964, so it had three decades in which to have undertaken protection. The hon. Gentleman mentioned particularly the flood of 1953. I remind him that those far-sighted Socialist London pioneers, Messrs. Morrison and Latham, who were the Tammany Hall bosses of the L.C.C, could have done something, but did not. If they had done something, particularly after 1953, it could have been done at perhaps half the cost which the G.L.C. now has to pay. I think that perhaps on this occasion the hon. Member for Woolwich, East might have emulated the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and not intervened on this point.
The debate calls into question the whole principle why the G.L.C. has to come to the House for a money Bill. Other great cities in the land—Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow—do not. I do not see why we should be forced to listen to intimate details about the type of barrier needed to control the Thames. This is a matter for the elected authority, the G.L.C. This House has other tasks to perform. I hope that the G.L.C, if it is to do its job properly, will decide to ask the House to promote legislation to relieve it of the need to come here to raise money. Certainly it

should come here for a general powers Bill for extra powers, but the right to spend money, which it debates and will call for and precept upon its ratepayers through the London boroughs, is not, in my view, the function of this House to decide. I certainly hope that the G.L.C. will take note of this and will seek, at the earliest opportunity, to introduce legislation to relieve this House of having to listen year after year to debates on the money Bill which I submit are quite unnecessary.

8.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I intervene briefly to say that the Government hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill so that the G.L.C. can continue with its capital expenditure programmes.
Several points have been raised in the debate on which I may perhaps briefly comment for the benefit of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) mentioned the Fleet Line. The Government are aware of the importance attached to this proposition and are considering their view about it. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to add to that tonight. As soon as we are in a position to go further we shall not hesitate to do so.
Concerning the flood problem facing London, my hon. Friend mentioned the interim work and the rate of grant. I am pleased to confirm the information which he gave in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) that the interim work is eligible for the 65 per cent. grant. The House should realise that the G.L.C. has already started on the interim work, which is part of the total scheme. Whilst not providing specific details tonight of the work which has already been put in hand, I can, as I am sure the G.L.C is prepared to do, provide hon. Members with the details of where the work is being carried out.
All hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have covered the vital problem which this now presents. I am sure that they welcome the speed with which this Government have given the 65 per cent. grant now available to the G.L.C.


to get on with solving this difficulty which, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have been among the first to say, has been with us a great deal longer than present risks would warrant.
Therefore, when we are welcoming that, it is perhaps helpful to remember that the present proposal put forward by the G.L.C. and accepted by the Government, which is for a rising sector barrier, is estimated to cost some £12 million less than the drop-gate alternative, and, perhaps equally important, can be completed some two years earlier than the alternative.
The point I want to make about this, particularly with regard to the speech by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), is that this is not an occasion for a long discussion on the merits of the various proposals put forward and on the arguments and facts available. It is appropriate for the House to give the Bill a Second Reading so that it can go to Committee, where it will be in order for those questions to be raised. Perhaps even more important, it will be necessary for the G.L.C. to sponsor a private Bill in the next Session of Parliament, a flood barrier Bill, to empower itself to go ahead with this proposition, and that Bill will be very much concerned with all the details raised. Whilst I can assure hon. Members who have referred to this problem that their points will be borne in mind, added to the information available, and considered, it is not for the convenience of the House to consider in detail the lengthy points raised, particularly by the hon. Member for Acton.

Mr. Spearing: In giving us the figure of £12 million less for the rising gate scheme, the Minister has added yet another figure to the many we have had. Does he agree that if we left the discussion of these points to the promotion of the Bill it would be far too late? Can he assure us that the points raised by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) will be answered by correspondence long before the Bill is tabled in the House.

Mr. Heseltine: That would be a rather wider undertaking than perhaps would be appropriate. A large number of the points have already been covered, even if per-

haps not to the hon. Member's satisfaction. Judgments have been reached at a political level by the G.L.C. and the Government, with wide information and technical backing available, some of which is already public knowledge, and the second Report is due to be put in the Library. There will be available to the hon. Gentleman a vast amount of information during the Committee stage of the Bill, and if he felt that there was an urgent need to raise further points, that would be the appropriate time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) raised the whole question of the ringway programme, which is a major capital project of immense implications. My hon. Friend will understand that as the Greater London Development Plan Panel is now sitting, and as it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider its findings, it is impossible for me to add any comments on the Government's views of that matter.
However, my hon. Friend moved on to a subject about which I should like to say a word or two—the problem of the growing number of heavy lorries and their impact upon our city centres. He will be encouraged to hear—if he has not done so already—of the decision taken by the Government only a matter of days ago to take powers in another place in the Highways Bill to provide lorry parks outside our major towns to see whether it is possible, in consultation with various haulage and local authority interests, for facilities to be provided for heavy lorries to use these parks for breaking bulk purposes, parking overnight and so on. He will be aware of the experiments under way in various places sponsored by my Department, which are designed to cope with some of the overnight parking problems of such great concern, particularly in residential areas. The Government are aware of the problem, and have already acted—further, perhaps, than my hon. Friend implied by his suggestion that there should be more research—to take powers to provide these areas. We have experiments under way.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East raised the question of the cost yardstick delays in the Department in respect of the Thamesmead project. He will know—and I have no wish to make party political points—that the delays until a


year or so ago were in no way the responsibility of my Government. The decision has recently been made on cost yardstick proposals for Stage 3, the end of what is now a relatively old contract. Therefore, I believe that we have cleared that problem. Equally, against this delay we have to balance the pressure which would have come from hon. Members on all sides of the House if we had not taken that decision after looking very carefully at the costs. Obviously it is very important for the Government to do everything it can to deal with the problem.

Mr. Mayhew: The enormous delays caused by successive Ministers in reaching a decision about yardsticks have resulted in increased escalation in costs of hundreds of thousands of £s. It has been a terrible waste of public money.

Mr. Heseltine: I was trying to be relatively sympathetic without making party political points. But a vast proportion of the delays were caused by the Government of which the hon. Member was once a Minister and always a supporter. I cannot accept responsibility. I can only say that we have already taken a decision to clear the last hurdle.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) made a speech largely devoted to the housing situation. There is nothing new that I can add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has already said in reply to the two debates and to Parliamentary Questions. As the House will know, he is shortly to hold a conference of all the London housing authorities to discuss London's housing problems. It would be pointless for me to try to anticipate the conclusions which will come from that discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), in a most forcible speech, indicated just how much responsibility there was for some of the defects of the past and where that responsibility lay. Even supposing that my hon. Friend was not

correct and that the then L.C.C. did not have these powers, what was the 1945–51 Labour Government doing that the L.C.C. did not have the powers at the end of that time? It serves no useful purpose, in the curing of housing problems, to try to make party political points. Everyone knows that this is something which has vexed all people in responsible positions, and everyone has done their best. I believe that our coherent and comprehensive approach to the problem, saying that everyone has a part to play, without trying to single out one facet of the problem and solution, is much more likely to solve the problems of London's homeless than the party political points of the hon. Member opposite.
The Bill should certainly be given a Second Reading in order to give the G.L.C. the opportunity to go on with its programmes, which it has already published and which it is already carrying on successfully.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Bill read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill]

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Nine o'clock.